So much has been written on this subject that I considered simply
avoiding it all together. Frankly, I’m bored to death with this debate. It’s an
emotionally charged issue and the two sides (balanced trainers vs. purely
positive trainers) are about as likely to agree as any other polar opposites,
like liberals vs. conservatives. But I
keep getting asked this question so I’ll answer it.
First let me explain what
I’m referring to in case you’ve never heard the terms “balanced” and “purely
positive.”
There are four quadrants in operant conditioning
(i.e. the way that animals learn), first systematized by behaviorist B.F. Skinner in the early
20th century. Animals learn from positive reinforcement (aka
positive reward), negative reinforcement (aka negative reward), positive
punishment (aka positive correction) and negative punishment (aka negative
correction). So far, no problem - everyone agrees on what operant conditioning
is.
Where they differ is that balanced trainers use all four quadrants and purely positive
trainers use mainly two: positive rewards (like a food treat), and negative
corrections (like a time-out or the removal of attention). Sometimes they use
the third, negative rewards, but not often. The most important difference is
that they do not believe in positive correction.
My opinion – positive rewards are a great way to teach a dog
what to do, but they are a bad way to teach a dog what NOT to do. When I see a
bad behavior, I prefer to correct it. Correcting bad behavior reduces the
likelihood of it recurring.
When a purely positive trainer sees a bad behavior, they
prefer to ignore it and reward (reinforce) the opposite behavior). Here’s a
real-life example of the difference between these two dog training
philosophies: If I am fostering a dog who decides to put his paws up on the top
of my kitchen counter and steal food from it, I will wait for him to do it,
catch him in the act, and correct him. If my correction is effective I will
only have to do it once, and his counter-surfing days are over for good. But a
purely positive trainer would ignore the bad behavior and reward the dog when
all 4 paws are on the floor. The problem
with that procedure is that counter-surfing, like many other undesirable
behaviors, are self-reinforcing. The reward is built into the behavior (in
this case, the fun of searching for food, and occasionally being rewarded by
stealing some food). But counter surfing
can be a very dangerous – potentially life threatening – habit. If a dog
snatches a bottle of medication, a large piece of chocolate, a sharp knife with
meat residue on it, etc. he can be seriously injured, maybe even die.
I would rather protect the dog’s safety and hurt his feelings, than the
other way around. And I’m in
good company:
Gary Wilkes, DVM, a
nationally known veterinarian and advocate of balanced dog training has written
extensively on this subject. I came across this recent post where he addressed
this very issue: “Positive reinforcement cannot inhibit behavior. If you choose “positive”
training you cannot stop anything. The common suggestion of “teach an alternate
behavior” is senseless. Learning to ride a horse doesn’t erase your knowledge
of riding a bike – no matter who much you are rewarded for riding horses….The
claim to be “positive” is a rhetorical tool that allows [purely positive
trainers] to fool either themselves or those they wish to persuade. .. All
manner of working dogs are trained to dependable performance using a balance of
positive and negative…. if using “negative” training is bad, why don’t Seeing
Eye dogs look terrified?”
The New York
Times obituary of Arthur
Haggerty (1932 - 2006),
called him “The
most famous dog trainer in the United States.” Haggerty had trained more
than 100,000 dogs including dogs for more than 450 television commercials and
more than 150 feature films. The Times article stated, “Haggerty… had little
patience for the New Age dog-training methods of recent years.” In a 2003 Dog
World article Haggerty said, “These methods, in which dog trainers...whisper in
the dog’s ear kissy face nice and click a clicker, are almost always
ineffectual.” In the article Haggerty gave an example using a dog who was
nuisance barking. Instead of following complicated protocols he preferred to
simply correct a dog for nuisance
barking, especially in a case where a renter threatened with eviction might be
forced to give up the dog. People needed fast, effective solutions. Correcting
the behavior enabled the dog to remain in the home and live, rather than be surrendered
to an overcrowded animal shelter and die.
These are only two examples of hundreds of experienced, well
known and highly respected professional dog trainers who believe in correcting bad behavior. (The most
famous advocate of correction of course, is TV’s Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan. The “purely positive” crowd doesn’t
like Cesar, but millions of dog owners around the world visit his website and read his best-selling books.)
So this debate is sure to continue, but I’ll stick with balanced dog training
methods using all four quadrants of operant conditioning. This approach is
based on science, not emotion, and it’s what I’ve seen work for thousands of
clients over more than 2 decades of professional dog training experience. In
contrast, I’ve retrained thousands of dogs whose owners were close to giving up
on them when purely positive methods failed miserably.
One last point: if
purely positive training is so great, why aren’t service dogs trained with
purely positive methods? Search dogs, military dogs, police patrol dogs and
seeing-eye dogs are all trained in balanced training programs, using
both rewards and correction, not in purely positive programs.
