08/10/2021
Yes, so please stop with the shock collars, electric fences (only if absolutely necessary) and prong collars! And no, there is not a good way to use these aversive tools.
It’s not just about “The Science”
For many years those of us with educational qualifications in the field of training and behaviour have been using “science” as an argument to persuade people to switch over to positive reinforcement and abandon aversive training methods. While I still believe that there is plenty of evidence for the efficacy of positive reinforcement and the potential harms of punitive training methods, I am starting to think that we may have been using the wrong strategy by simply telling people to “follow the science”.
The reality is that there is also evidence that punishment works. You can alter behaviour using aversive training tools (albeit with unpleasant fallout) and plenty of people stick with such training methods because they see results. After all, the theory of operant conditioning involves 3 types of learning in addition to positive reinforcement: removing something a dog wants to reduce behaviour (negative punishment), adding something unpleasant to reduce behaviour (positive punishment) or removing something unpleasant to increase behaviour (negative reinforcement). While we understand that there are unpleasant emotional consequences for dogs attached to all three of these types of learning, this does not mean that they don’t change behaviour – they do.
So, what is the real crux of the matter? What are we really striving for by trying to persuade people to use positive reinforcement rather than those types of learning which carry unpleasant emotional consequences? Are we just wanting to change behaviour in the way that we think is most effective? I don’t think so. The true difference between someone who strives to use positive reinforcement and avoids using both positive and negative punishment and negative reinforcement, is that we care about the emotional experience and wellbeing of dogs. Yes, there are lots of things we can do to dogs to change behaviour, but the question is about whether they are ethical or not.
At the end of the day, people have different views on the subject. Some people simply do not believe that animals are emotional beings or that their feelings and experiences matter much. For them, the ends justify the means. Others feel that they have a right as humans to get results as quickly and conveniently as possible and animals have no real rights, so whatever works is acceptable. Some believe that our dogs must be subordinate to us, so some sort of force and intimidation is necessary to create a “dominant-subordinate” relationship. Then there are those of us who recognise that all animals have complex emotions and that we have a duty of care to avoid causing suffering and to promote good feelings in our interactions with them.
While a fair amount of ignorance exists around the rich emotional lives of animals and many people have been influenced by outdated pop dog psychology, at some point, no matter how much information a person has, the choice becomes an ethical one. In the end people have to decide whether it is okay to cause fear, pain, frustration and discomfort to get what you want from a dog. Each person has to ask themselves if it is okay for humans to make dogs feel bad to get our way or whether, because the means exist to train and manage behaviour in ways that contribute to positive emotional experiences for dogs, ethics requires us to make a choice for positive reinforcement.
It is not just about the science or about what “works” – it is about how we view dogs, their emotional capacity and their right to lead happy, fulfilled lives that are free from pain and fear. If you believe it is wrong to hurt or frighten an animal to get them to comply with what you want, you will not need science to convince you of that!
