Operant conditioning by Pamela J, Reid, Ph.D.

I sometimes hear dog trainers claim that they are purely positive in their methods because they use operant conditioning. For instance, in the August 2000 AKC Gazette, Karen Pryor refers to operant conditioning as "the art of training behavior without using force or punishment." Unfortunately this creates confusion because operant conditioning includes any learning in which the dog's behaviour is instrumental in producing a consequence. The dog might do something that produces a pleasant consequence or an unpleasant one - both are examples of operant conditioning.

The ABC's of operant conditioning

Operant conditioning follows a specific sequence: Antecedent - > Behaviour - >Consequence.

The antecedent is the cue or command used to signal the dog to perform a behaviour. It could also be any situation that triggers a certain behaviour to occur. The behaviour is what the dog does and this behaviour leads to a consequence. Whether the dog continues to perform the behaviour is a result of the consequence. Thorndike's Law of Effect describes how this works: if a consequence is pleasant, the preceding behaviour becomes more likely; if a consequence is unpleasant, the preceding behaviour becomes less likely.

The power of consequences

There are four ways that influential consequences can occur. For instance, a guest comes to the door and your dog jumps up. The guest makes a fuss over the dog and he enjoys it. This is positive reinforcement because the guest presented something pleasant (attention) and the dog is more likely to jump up the next time a guest arrives. The term "reinforcement" refers to the fact that the preceding behaviour becomes more likely. The term "positive" signifies that the guest added something. It does not symbolize that the dog likes it.

Alternatively, the guest could have presented the dog with something unpleasant by kneeing the dog in the chest when he jumped up. (I am not recommending this because it could injure or frighten the dog.) This is positive punishment because the dog is less likely to jump up on guests again. "Punishment" refers to the fact that the preceding behaviour becomes less likely. It is positive because the guest is still adding something - in this case, something aversive to the dog.

Instead of the consequence involving the presentation of something pleasant or unpleasant, the consequence could be the removal of something pleasant or unpleasant. Suppose the dog jumps up on the guest and the guest turns away and faces the wall until the dog stops jumping. This is negative punishment because the dog is less likely to jump up on guests again, since jumping up involved the removal of something pleasant. The dog wanted the guest's attention but, when he jumped up, the guest removed attention. It is still punishment because the preceding behaviour becomes less likely. The term "negative" signifies that the guest removed something. It does not symbolize that the dog doesn't like it.

In the final scenario, the dog sits nicely at the door and the guest reaches down to shake the dog's paw. The guest shakes the dog's paw so roughly that the dog jumps up at the person. The person lets go of the dog's paw. This is negative reinforcement because the dog found the rough shaking unpleasant and discovered that the behaviour of jumping up stopped the unpleasantness. It is reinforcement because the jumping-up behaviour is more likely to happen the next time someone touches the dog's paw. It is negative because the guest removed something. One of the easiest ways to conceive of negative reinforcement is to think of it as escape or avoidance. The dog was able to escape rough handling by jumping up at the person.

Real Life Examples

Much of our dogs' behaviour, and our own behaviour, is governed by operant conditioning. You will quickly realize, however, that these consequences rarely occur in isolation. Rewards are given (positive reinforcement) or withheld (negative punishment), depending upon behaviour. Behaviour that leads to something unpleasant is inhibited (positive punishment), while a different behaviour is often expressed in order to avoid the unpleasantness again (negative reinforcement), Examples of behaviour maintained primarily through positive reinforcement abound. We work hard on a project at work to earn the approval of our peers. Our dogs bark at the cookie jar because we are likely to give them a treat.

Much behaviour is governed by positive punishment. As children, we learned to inhibit swearing in front of our parents because it resulted in scolding. Our dogs refrain from urinating in the house or chewing the furniture because these behaviours cause us to reprimand them. One dog learns to stay out of the other dog's bed because it once led to a fight.

Examples of behaviour governed by negative punishment are also prevalent. As children, we learned not to have a temper tantrum or we would have to go to our rooms. Our dogs learn not to behave too rambunctiously in the house or they are banished to the backyard.

Finally, there is behaviour maintained through negative reinforcement. We wear seatbelts to avoid the nasty buzzing sound in the car and to avoid being badly injured in an accident. Our dogs learn to play catch-me-if-you-can to avoid coming home from the park. Dogs that live with electronic containment systems stay inside the property boundary to avoid being shocked.

The bottom line

Operant conditioning is not a new discovery nor is it some type of magical training tool. It is a term that describes all behaviour that is controlled by its consequences. Reward-based training emphasizes specific components of operant conditioning: positive reinforcement and negative punishment. Compulsive training incorporates some degree of negative reinforcement and positive punishment. Both training philosophies are based on operant conditioning methods.\par Pamela J. Reid, Ph.D., is a certified applied animal behaviourist, assistant professor at Guelph and runs her own practice. She received the 1999 DWAA Award for Best Column.

From Dogs In Canada, September 2000, p. 81 & 84, DOGS IN CANADA (September 2000}