16/07/2023
FREEDOM AND THE PINK BOOTS
Goldiamond and Layng use degrees of freedom (df) to discuss the topic of choice. In statistics, degrees of freedom are the number of values free to vary, given one or more constraints. So, for example, if the constraint we’re given is that a set of 100 numbers must sum to 100, then 99 numbers are free to vary but the last number is locked in – it can only be the number that results in a sum of 100. The general formula for calculating df is n – 1 (where n is the number of total values). Thus, df in this case is . . . anyone? 100 – 1 = 99. YESSSS! Let's do it again: If we are given a set of 50 numbers and the constraint given is that the 50 numbers must sum to 75, df = 50 - 1 = 49. Good practice!
As clear as mud?
Let’s connect the dots back to our wheelhouse: Contingencies (i.e., antecedents-behavior-consequences) to see how df fit into modern animal care.
It starts with asking, what do we mean by choice? The penny really dropped for me when Joe Layng described Goldiamond’s distinction between choice and genuine choice. This is a practical and important distinction.
Let’s consider a dog who readily sits for a liver snap, a high value reinforcer for this pup's behavior. If the available contingencies are 1) sit and get the treat, or 2) don’t sit and forfeit the treat, we could say, conventionally speaking, that the dog has a choice – either do or don’t do, get or don’t get.
But Goldiamond pointed out that do or don’t do (get or don’t get) choices aren’t genuine choices because there is only one way to get the reinforcer. A genuine choice has more than one way to get the reinforcer.
The degrees of freedom for the “do or don’t do” choice is 1 – 1 = 0, because there is only one way to get the liver snap. If the dog doesn’t sit there isn’t another option that leads to the treat. Zero degrees of freedom is not a genuine choice.
Here’s another example. Compare these options: “Put on the pink boots or we're not going to the park.” df = 0, yes? We may call it a choice, but it isn’t a genuine choice because there is only one way to go to the park – by putting on the pink boots.
Alternatively, how about this approach: “Put on either the pink boots or the yellow boots, and then we’ll go to the park." Here df are 2 -1 = 1. Two ways to get to the park – a genuine choice. This is cool.
With or without the calculation of df here’s the bottom line: Generally speaking, 1) more than one option for accessing valued reinforcers improves the quality of life. And 2) big skill repertoires are needed to benefit from genuine choice (choice-rich) environments.
The concept of choice vs genuine choice is worth considering carefully and creatively: How can we offer more genuine choices to the learners in our care? How can we arrange environments to support more genuine choices? This isn’t an all or nothing proposition. Some husbandry and medical behaviors may be better taught with df = 0. It is a lifestyle of genuine choice that is the basis of freedom as I understand it and one of the big picture goals of modern training.
See de Fernandes, R.C., & Dittrich, A., (2018) for a comprehensive discussion of freedom as considered by Goldiamond, https://link.springer.com/article/10.5210/bsi.v27i0.8248
Here's a wonderful description of degrees of freedom as it relates to statistics and hats if you want to dive a little deeper: https://tinyurl.com/2uewxk8j
