[Study] Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods

[eront]

ABSTRACT

Domestic dogs are trained using a range of different methods, broadly categorised as reward based (positive reinforcement/negative punishment) and aversive based (positive punishment/negative reinforcement). Previous research has suggested associations between use of positive punishment-based techniques and undesired behaviours, but there is little research investigating the relative welfare consequences of these different approaches. This study used a judgement bias task to compare the underlying mood state of dogs whose owners reported using two or more positive punishment/negative reinforcement based techniques, with those trained using only positive reinforcement/negative punishment in a matched pair study design. Dogs were trained to discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded locations equidistant from a start box, and mean latencies recorded. Their subsequent latency to intermediate ‘ambiguous’ locations was recorded as an indication of whether these were perceived as likely to contain food or not. Dogs trained using aversive methods were slower to all ambiguous locations. This difference was significant for latency to the middle (Wilcoxon Z = − 2.380, P = 0.017), and near positive (Wilcoxon Z = − 2.447, P = 0.014) locations, suggesting that dogs trained using coercive methods may have a more negative mood state, and hence that there are welfare implications of training dogs using such methods.

Source

Keep in mind that this is OWNERS using two or more methods based on a survey, not trainers.

Learning the unrewarded vs rewarded task did not have a difference in how quickly it was picked up, but the difference in latency where owners used two of the following methods: Bark activated citronella collar,
Remote activated citronella collar,
Pet corrector,
Physical punishment (e.g. smacking or shaking),
Remote activated electronic collar,
Bark activated electronic collar,
Water pistol,
Check or choke chain,
‘Rattle can’ or other sound based ‘distraction’ method

It did not differentiate between aversive methods, just that two or more of these were used.

I feel that studying laypeople rather than focusing on the methodology of "proper use" may be a good way to get a general understanding of the overall risks involved from day-to-day ownership, as a significant number people really don't go through a qualified trainer.

 

[victorshannon128]

@eront I read a quote the other day that really is important about training.
“I would rather my dog confidently make a mistake than be too scared to make a choice”. This is really why we use positive methods. My dogs don’t fear making mistakes. Mistakes are part of learning for any living thing. I’m currently training my 4 month old GSD for sport work. She does make mistakes. She never fears mistakes because we back up and go at her pace. A good trainer can set a dog up for success. If you are constantly correcting with tools your set up is fundamentally wrong. Training is fun and we are working becoming a team. Also where lots of correction training fails is actually teaching what you want vs just correcting the behavior. Your dog may stop the behavior but does he understand what you want instead?

 

[eront]

@victorshannon128 On that note, sometimes the only option is correction because there's really no "I want this other behavior" besides "this has to stop". Of course, those of the force-free/LIMA camp will use humane corrections such as time outs rather than force.

My best example, is my dog Mika. He has a kitty snicker affinity, and it is such an affinity he'll go straight for the source by licking cat butt because all other access has been blocked off. I couldn't have this because 1) gross, and 2) the cat could swat Mika in the eye very easily. He has already had a close call, and it's a safety risk.

I started putting Mika in time out every single time I saw him licking cat butt. He got to the point he put himself into time out every time he licked cat butt and would just accept that's the "payment" for it. Fortunately, he has since decided in his shiba head that it's just not worth the "payment" this week, so the behavior has mostly stopped.

There really isn't always a "what I want", which, really brings in the appeal of +P in training. Like, when it involves cat butt I don't really want anything in particular, I just want that to stop. I've been kinda conflicted on what the next step could be. I can't have my dog risking his eyes because of this habit, there's no need he's missing out on, he has plenty of enrichment opportunities and he does "leave it" or other cues quite well but would go back to it later, so it doesn't really fix the problem of this highly-rewarding behavior. My cats have roam of the house, the dogs are already restricted and crating Mika all day wouldn't be realistic.

This particular situation kind of made me feel like I possibly could've been wrong, that perhaps there are things I can't solve with humane means. I've bounced options off a few people and it baffled them too. But, I feel like sometimes those of us in the force-free camp need to step back and recognize things like my above situation as a real problem that may not exactly have a realistic "set up for success" solution totally. I became frustrated over this, despite my personal experience, despite my position, and despite my network. Imagine a layperson who perhaps doesn't really have a "position" they're apart of? That squirt gun looks really appealing.

I'm not disagreeing, just acknowledging a complication aloud.