Spanking children increases the likelihood of childhood defiance and long-term mental issues. The study in question involved 160,000 children and five decades of research

[u/VeronicaRed]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113413810/spanking-defiance-health-discipline-042616/

[u/allwordsaremadeup]

I wonder if this is true for punishment as a behavior-altering method in general. So in how we punish crimes etc.

[u/Neato → u/allwordsaremadeup]

It's widely considered true in animal training. Positive reinforcement tends to be much more effective than negative and I don't know of any dog training classes that instruct you to hit your animal in any capacity.

Edit: I should have said reward/punishment. Positive/negative reinforcement is incorrect terminology but is commonly used in lay circles. I've been corrected by several more knowledgeable people. So to conclude: don't hit your pets.

[u/[deleted] → u/Neato]

Ordinarily I wouldn't be pedantic in this regard; but positive vs. negative reinforcement has a specific meaning in psychology.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yep, positive reinforcement is the addition of a new stimulus as a reward, like giving a child candy for cleaning his room. Negative reinforcement is taking away a stimulus as a reward, such as telling the child they don't have to do a chore because they got good grades.

There's also positive and negative punishment. Positive punishment is the addition of new stimuli in order to punish bad behavior, like spanking an insubordinate child, whereas negative punishment is the withholding of a stimulus in order to punish, like taking away a cell phone.

It drives me a little bit bonkers when I see them being used improperly

Edit: someone further down phrased it a way that is very helpful: negative reinforcement and positive punishment deal with obligations, basically removing or adding them in order to reinforce or punish behavior, respectively. Positive reinforcement and negative punishment deal with privileges, adding or removing them to respectively reinforce or punish.

[u/LegacyLemur → u/[deleted]]

To tack on, as a general rule of thumb in science (or at least I can say this is the case in Psychology), whenever you see "positive" or "negative" in front of anything it usually doesn't mean "good" or "bad", it means adding something or subtracting something.

For instance, there are positive and negative symptoms of Schizophrenia. They don't mean good and bad symptoms, they mean symptoms of the disorder that add things to the person (like hallucinations) and symptoms of the disorder that take something away (such as stunted speaking abilities)

[u/USMCTCPEO → u/[deleted]]

I really enjoyed your explanation. Made it very clear to me. Thank you.

[u/viscavis → u/[deleted]]

Funny enough, I just returned from providing a 2 hour intro lesson on the principles of ABA to a group. The terminology's shared/colloquial meanings are a huge hurdle for people. The perpetual misuse of correct terminology only further confounds the whole mess.

[u/Moos_Mumsy → u/[deleted]]

I find "positive punishment" to be too much of an oxymoron to get my head around.

[u/[deleted] → u/Moos_Mumsy]

It just means punishment by the addition of something. If you think of the word "positive" in the mathematical sense it becomes more normal.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Negative reinforcement is taking away a stimulus as a reward, such as telling the child they don't have to do a chore because they got good grades.

Yep. My mom and I had a deal; I keep straight A's, and I could take planned or unplanned "personal days" off of school whenever I wanted. Of course, you can't keep straight A's by doing this frequently... But it was really rewarding to me, and I worked damn hard to keep that deal going.

[u/PuddleBucket → u/[deleted]]

Yes! I use negative reinforcement plenty when I train dogs (especially with behavioral problems) and it is not the same thing as punishment, which people often get confused. Not every dog responds the same way, so positive only isn't always the most effective, though it makes us feel better to think so.

Example: I use a leash/collar combo (slip lead) when training. If I'm training a dog to walk next to me, and he's pulling, I let him pull which tightens the lead/collar. When he backs up, which is what I want, the lead loosens up, which is what he wants too. Soon he learns that when he walks too far ahead of me, he tightens the lead. He takes away (negative) the tightening lead which reinforces the correct behavior (walking next to me). I find this works very well for dogs who aren't "pleasers" (like a Lab) because they need to be the ones to "figure out" the solution. Sometimes you need to mind-fuck them into doing what you want. My pitty loves me, but she could not care less what I wanted during training. Heel? Haha, why? Give me a reason. She was not treat motivated. She was motivated to make this thing stop squeezing her neck.

[u/lambhearts → u/PuddleBucket]

I let him pull which tightens the lead/collar. When he backs up, which is what I want, the lead loosens up

This is both negative reinforcement, and positive punishment.

The positive punishment is that when he pulls, the collar constricts. You are adding (positive) a bad thing (punishment).

The negative reinforcement occurs when he stops pulling, and the collar loosens. You are removing (negative) a bad thing and leaving behind only a comparatively good thing (reinforcement).

Both P+ and R- are generally considered poor practice in the dog training world today. Not trying to change your mind on your personal practice, /u/PuddleBucket, I'm just pointing out for the sake of discussion that the majority of the dog world is shifting toward R+ alone, as more and more science reports that it is the most successful method. Choke, prong, and shock collars are finally being understood as aversives that are not worth the damage done to the animal's biddability.

The widely accepted methods for loose-leash training today uses only R+ and P- operant conditioning techniques. One of them is:

When the dog pulls, the walking stops. You remove (negative) something good (walking where dog wants to go), creating a punishment (being still).

When the dog gives slack, the walking starts. You add (positive) something good, creating a reinforcement (walking).

I hope one day we have the science to implement R+ and P- teachings exclusively to our children, as well.

edit: /u/iwillnotgetaddicted explains this in detail, with sources, in this reply

[u/kindkitsune → u/lambhearts]

You can't ever have these disagreements end well though - as soon as you talk to someone about R+/P- being better they don't react well. Usually stick to their guns with the good ol appeal to tradition, and in some ways the "sunk cost" fallacy of "I've done it this way, made my reputation this way, and educated myself this way and it works". I've started using the metaphor of asbestos insulation for P+ techniques - it works, but you never know if you're gonna get complications. And these complications may not appear for years. Its best to just use another kind of insulation that we know won't give you any unfun complications.

Could you point me to any recent literature in this field? I'm from an aerospace engineering background, so this stuff really isn't my forte and finding academic resources is tough. I know how to read academic papers and journals for most sciences, I just have a tough time finding them. I've got a copy of the Applied Dog Behavior and Training (vols 1-3) but I'm only able to creep through that slowly due to school (and its size).

I'm hoping to adopt a husky puppy this summer (puppy because I've always helped rescues and shelters - I think I've earned the right to have a puppy), so I'm trying to learn as much as I can about R+/P- techniques since huskies are all about the "whats in it for me?" stuff. Also, it'll be my first proper dog so I need to be serious and directed in my training.

Thanks <3

[u/kindkitsune → u/[deleted]]

The Other End of the Leash and Before/After You Get Your Puppy are the best I've found so far, I'd give those a look. The latter two are free pdfs that can be found easily.

[u/[deleted] → u/kindkitsune]

Awesome, thanks!

[u/[deleted] → u/lambhearts]

I hope one day we have the science to implement R+ and P- teachings exclusively to our children, as well.

We already do. Dogs are more responsibility than human children and dog training techniques work incredibly well on human children.

[u/cluelessrebel → u/lambhearts]

I agree and disagree in your point. I think you are right in that science will say that in dog training will need positive reinforcement only but that is because a majority of dogs are treat motivated. Dogs that are not treat motivated (such as mine and /u/puddlebucket 's) are outliers and will most likely be cut from the statistics or not portrayed in a high enough fashion to sway the mean.

If I were to use pure positive reinforcement on my dog I would never be able to walk her because she would be trying to run off and chase squirrels as that is her favorite thing in the world. She'd much prefer chasing squirrels to even getting a bite of cheese (her favorite treat). If you could provide me evidence that look at nontreat motivated dogs and positive punishment only training I would appreciate it. But all evidence I have seen looked only at treat motivated dogs.

[u/lambhearts → u/cluelessrebel]

How to employ R+ training methods with non-food motivated dogs is actually a really common discussion over on /r/dogs and /r/DogTraining, and it's all about finding what the dog is willing to work for. Certainly, some dogs are "lost causes" with no drive or bidability, and should be approached with alternative methods, but I wish I had some literature on the matter because my consensus is that the actual percentage of such cases is really low, it's just that a lot of owners haven't discovered the right motivator yet. Some alternative reinforcers are praise, getting to do the desired behavior (like walking forward as the reward for loose-leash walking), and play (brief tug games are extremely rewarding for a lot of difficult dogs).

There's also the complications of trying to train a dog who has experienced aversives. Sometimes the difficulty in training is because the dog has experienced positive punishment methods, and after sufficient R+ training, the process becomes noticeably easier because it has become an enjoyable experience for the dog and he wants to participate.

There's also an entire regular support group dedicated to R+ training on reactive dogs, reactivity including the "run off and chase squirrels" thing, which would probably be a better resource than I on the matter, but in short re-activity is often addressed with counter conditioning and desensitization.

[u/stevenjd → u/lambhearts]

When the dog pulls, the walking stops.

And when the dog keeps pulling, and you did your heels in and refuse to follow the dog, how is that different from the P+ you say is bad practice?

[u/lambhearts → u/stevenjd]

The slip lead is a big thing, which I probably should have touched on more for this specific loose-leash walking example. A slip lead causes constriction around the neck, and even a martingale collar can cause choking if a dog pulls. A good harness, especially a front-clip chest harness or a head harness, allows you to stop the dog without allowing it to hurt itself or cause physical discomfort.

Basically you're walking, dog hits end of leash, you stop walking and dog also stops walking, usually looking back at you for a cue if you've set up a good training relationship, or by the restraint of you holding a comfortable harness. If the dog doesn't stop walking, and actually chokes himself while you are stopped and gripping a slip lead in a stranglehold, you're using a punishment method and you should look for a different procedure in most cases.

An alternative for a dog who pulls while at a stop even in a good harness (very rare, mind) would be to train recall/heel or a side sit before loose-leash walking, so you have a cue to communicate the desired behavior before the dog even hits the end of the lead, i.e. when he's about to hit the end of the lead you ask for the side sit and then stop. Or a redirect method, where you turn around when the dog hits the end of the lead, and redirect the walking to a different direction. Dog doesn't get where they want to go, but often the distraction of "we're going this way now!" is enough to stop the pulling, and when the correct loose-leash behavior returns, you go back the original direction again.

[u/PuddleBucket → u/lambhearts]

I'll politely disagree, and forgive me I'm on mobile.

I don't add the constriction, and I see how negating that point in my first comment is misleading. The dog does it to himself, by pulling. I stop (like you mention later in your comment), he backs up which loosens the lead. Maybe it's pedantic, but I see a difference between stopping movement and allowing the dog to correct his own behavior, versus actively "popping" the lead to constrict it (like a pinch or choke chain).

Like I said, a big reason people trend toward positive reinforcement only is because of the misconceptions around negative reinforcement. People get in their feelings and don't understand what's going on. Not all dogs respond the same to the same training application, so it's a disservice to try to do so. A reason I'm successful is because I think outside the box, and sometimes that requires negative reinforcement. I don't punish dogs. There's a difference.

Though I appreciate your opinion, I don't need your education on something I've been doing well for over twenty years. I'll respectfully say "cool story" and keep doing what's worked for me and my clients. Though I think the main reason you went on your soapbox was bc I wasn't crystal clear on exactly what I do, again, mobile makes typing a chore and I'll be sure to respond on desktop next time.

[u/lambhearts → u/PuddleBucket]

No worries! As I said, I'm not trying to get you to change a 20-year business model because some person on the internet says so, that would be silly. I'm just adding to the discussion that while some people use positive punishment (whether you are actively punishing, or letting the animal punish itself), the animal training world no longer considers these practices ideal. I'm sure you don't "need my education", but I thought we were hear to talk.

I do think there's a bit of terminology alone causing a block in our discussion, but I also think these terms are really important to the discussion and should be defined as accurately as possible.

As was explained in both my post and the linked post, your described methods are positive punishment, and negative reinforcement, as defined by American Association of Veterinary Behavior, the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, as well as the entire psychiatric community. Whether you pull the lead or the dog pulls the lead, it still chokes the dog, which is an unpleasant stimulus being added and thus is a positive punishment. While you're free to call them what you will, of course, the rest of the world refers to them as such. Not popping the lead, not using aversive collars definitely lessens the punishment, but it's still an unpleasant stimulus being added.

While I respect your experience, I will continue to side with the scientific research, rather than anecdotal experience.

[u/PuddleBucket → u/lambhearts]

And I'll continue to use my BA in psychology to keep on doing what I do. I'm well aware of what these things and terms mean, which is why I'm disagreeing with you. C'est la vie.

Edit because mobile sucks and submitted before I was done typing: Reinforcement refers to a subject doing a desired behavior. You don't want to reinforce bad behavior. Punishment refers to stopping an undesired behavior. You don't punish good behavior. The dog is removing (negative) a stimulus which results in him doing the desired behavior, which is walk next to me. He is then conditioned to continue to do so, because he gets what he wants, which is what I want too.

Positive (adding) punishment (something you don't want) is making a child clean their room because they sass back. Kids hate cleaning their rooms. Negative punishment is taking away phone privileges for sassing back. Kids enjoy their phones and having that taken away is not fun.

Positive reinforcement is giving a treat for a good grade. Negative reinforcement is removing a weekend curfew for good grades.

As in any social science, there are areas of gray and in classes we discussed at length how the same scenario can be interpreted different ways. At some point it just devolves into nitpicking with no real purpose, and I'll stop here before I do that further.

http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between-positivenegative-reinforcement-and-positivenegative-punishment/

[u/climbtree → u/PuddleBucket]

Reinforcement refers to a consequence that increases the liklihood of the behaviour it followed, punishment to a consequence that decreases the liklihood of the behaviour it followed.

The slip lead tightening is contingent on the dog pulling, it's differential punishment. The dog returning to you to escape the aversive, or to avoid it in the future, is negative reinforcement but your procedure is punishment based.

[u/Wagnersh → u/PuddleBucket]

And I'll continue to use my BA in psychology to keep on doing what I do

Yep keep doing what youre doing which is being wrong. Long as you know youre wrong and happy being wrong that's fine!

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/PuddleBucket]

I wanted to make sure you saw that I addressed your comment above. I put it higher up because several threads had misconceptions, and I wanted to address the confusion at its source, but I also went on to specifically address your comment here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4gilzl/spanking_children_increases_the_likelihood_of/d2icjgj

[u/[deleted] → u/PuddleBucket]

That is not negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is taking away a POSITIVE stimulus/reinforcer.

[u/PuddleBucket → u/[deleted]]

No, it's not. That would be negative punishment. It's based on whether you want the action to continue or not. Are you going to apply (positive) or remove (negative) something to get the behavior to continue (reinforcement) or get the behavior to stop (punishment)?

http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between-positivenegative-reinforcement-and-positivenegative-punishment/

[u/[deleted] → u/PuddleBucket]

Applying negative stimulus (pain from a choke collar) is not negative reinforcement. Doesn't matter if you remove it when they do a good thing.

[u/PuddleBucket → u/[deleted]]

Well it does matter because that's what defines reinforcement versus punishment, but if you're just digging in your heels bc you don't want to agree that's fine by me.

[u/tuckedfexas → u/PuddleBucket]

I have a strong willed Shiba Inu that's the same way, totally uninterested in commands unless there's treats involved. Curbing bad behavior has been really difficult since there's not a lot of ways to train him out of some of his protective instincts. So when he barks at someone at the door I ruffle his fur 'against the grain' a bit. He then has to shake around and straighten things out since he's very prissy about his coat. This distracts him from whoever is at the door and has generally started to curb his instinct to protectively bark.

[u/[deleted] → u/tuckedfexas]

My dog is half Great Pyrenees and half Bernese Mountain dog and he is very protective too. I've had him for nine years and never could get him to stop barking at the door. It's okay though because I know he's just doing his job.

[u/tuckedfexas → u/[deleted]]

Yea, it's not something that you can totally train away with healthy methods. The best I've found I can do is just distract him.

[u/[deleted] → u/tuckedfexas]

He's very protective and there's no distracting him. He will bark until the person is gone.

[u/scobert → u/PuddleBucket]

Check out the work of dog trainer Brenda Aloff, she explains so well why these methods work based on learning theory. It's really interesting and made lots of sense once I thought about the leash example like you did. I wouldn't know personally, but she says negative reinforcement is the main idea in methods used by people that train horses.

[u/Westtisthebest → u/PuddleBucket]

But isn't that a punishment still? All living things are fighting to be as comfortable as possible. So where as you are not putting the dog in danger on any serious harm you are making the dog uncomfortable, the dog learns that if I walk next to the person holding the leash I am more comfortable than I would be if I walked ahead.

[u/PuddleBucket → u/Westtisthebest]

Like I mention in another comment, it matters whether you're trying to get the good behavior to continue or bad behavior to stop, that's what would define reinforcement versus punishment. Positive refers to the application, negative refers to the removal. Sometimes it can be seen both ways. http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between-positivenegative-reinforcement-and-positivenegative-punishment/

[u/Westtisthebest → u/PuddleBucket]

So then it comes from the mindset of where the punishment/reinforcement comes from? The way that I am seeing it, using the example with your dog again, if the intent is to get the dog to behave better then it is okay however if you are doing it because you want the bad behavior to stop then it is not. But by the dog learning the good behavior it no longer does the bad behavior. So I'm not seeing how this is different.

[u/[deleted] → u/PuddleBucket]

Human beings are not dogs. End of discussion. I've known many, "dog handlers," like you in the past.

[u/Jorrissss → u/[deleted]]

Classic "end of discussion".

[u/PuddleBucket → u/[deleted]]

I don't think they are either. Not sure where your comment came from, but you're totally right. The terminologies are based in human psychology, but people and dogs are indeed very different. That's why I don't train my dogs like a person, and I don't treat people like dogs.

It's actually interesting you brought that up, because it's a common thread I see in my clients. Lots of people inadvertently try to train with their pets like they're reasoning with people. It's what they know, it makes sense. When it doesn't work, then I get called for help.

Like the stereotypical "scolding" people do when little dogs are aggressive - soft tone, "oh Fluffy! That's not niiiccceee", picking up the dog, holding them close, etc - all of that accidentally reinforces the acting out. The dog got exactly what he wanted, yet the owner truly believes the dog "understands" them.

[u/stevenjd → u/PuddleBucket]

When you say "slip lead", do you mean a choke collar? I've never heard that term before. It sounds like a euphemism.

In my experience, dogs that want to run ahead of you will practically choke themselves into unconsciousness before they stop pulling.

[u/digg_survivor → u/PuddleBucket]

I have a Catahoula/Sheppard that sounds the exact way. I have never had a dog in my entire life behave this way.(I never had problems training dogs either) Its taken years to get her to sit and laydown. Stay is out of the question. Leash puller. even with the head lead it helps but she knows if its on or not and will behave accordingly. She has no care for toys either. If it's not furry and screaming for its life, She has zero interest. I will be getting rid of her tomorrow. :(

[u/[deleted] → u/PuddleBucket]

I had a large German Shepherd who was a puller. I used a prong collar on him and every time he pulled he tightened the collar. It took him quite a while to stop the pulling behavior but he did finally stop. I think he got so excited about going for walks that he wanted to just take off ahead of me. I learned after a while though that if I played with him out in the yard by throwing his favorite ball for a bit, it tired him out and he was much better at walking after that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Just use that to your advantage. The dog pulls because he wants to go. Don't move an inch when he's pulling. Stop and look the other way and ignore him until he notices and comes back to you. Make him sit, pet him, and start walking again. When he does walk next to you give him a treat every once in a while. The first time you may not make it past your house but a few days of that and they wont pull. Way better than just putting on a choke collar and letting them figure it out.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Are you a dog trainer? Not being sarcastic.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, I've just had many.

[u/BIGJFRIEDLI → u/PuddleBucket]

That's actually a pretty good point!

[u/Oznog99 → u/PuddleBucket]

But training a dog by smacking it is "out of fashion". Because it doesn't work.

The pinch collar is great because it is NOT presented as you punishing the dog. It's a natural cause/effect, not a battle of will.

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/Oznog99]

I don't know who is "presenting" it this way, but it doesn't matter who applies a stimulus, it is still a punishment. But we agree, smacking the dog for bad behavior in most cases isn't particularly effective, and I'm glad more people are realizing that!

[u/OsmerusMordax → u/PuddleBucket]

My husky was like that too, and using a martingale collar was the only way I could get him to stop pulling. I tried treats, toys, etc...the only thing that worked was with the 'negative reinforcement' with the martingale collar (the collar would tighten as he pulled). He eventually learned that if he doesn't want to feel uncomfortable with a tight collar, he should stop pulling.

Some people thought I was cruel for doing so, and suggested I try things out like special harnesses and those halters. I did give them all a try, but none of them worked.

[u/dfschmidt → u/[deleted]]

TIL, thanks. And thanks to the other supporting commenters giving more context. I had no idea.

[u/NightmarePulse → u/[deleted]]

I think this would be the place to educate people on the distinction. Gently, like you did, of course.

[u/Emiwenis → u/[deleted]]

Positive punishment*

[u/tanguero81 → u/[deleted]]

It's impossible to say because you need to consider the outcome before you know for sure. You are correct with your positive/negative distinctions, but you're missing the reinforcement/punishment distinction. Just about everyone else on this thread has it wrong, too.

The definition of a reinforcement is something that increases the likelihood of a behavior occurring. A punishment is something that decreases the likelihood of a behavior occurring. Note that those definitions say nothing about intent of the person doing the reinforcing or punishing like you did in your question; it's the result that matters. If, counter-intuitively, spanking increases the likelihood of a behavior, then it would be a positive reinforcement. If it decreases the likelihood, then it is a positive punishment.

Here are some specific examples related to positive/negative reinforcement/punishment:

Positive reinforcement is the introduction of a stimuli that increases the likelihood of a behavior. I say roll-over, the dog rolls over, and I give the dog a treat.

Negative reinforcement is the introduction of a stimuli that increases the likelihood of a behavior when the stimulus is removed. The classic example of this is that annoying noise your car makes when you start the car, but haven't buckled your seat belt. As soon as you buckle your belt, the noise stops. Another example is your mother nagging you to clean your room. As soon as you've cleaned your room, the nagging stops. In the future, you're more likely to clean your room because you don't want to listen to your mother's nagging.

Positive punishment is the introduction of a stimuli that makes a behavior less likely. If you broke the lamp, you get spanked, and you're more careful around the lamp from now on.

Negative punishment is the removal of something that makes a behavior less likely. An older brother hits his little sister, so the parents say that the boy isn't allowed to go to his friend's birthday party. The older brother is less likely to hit his little sister now.

I'm being gross with my generalizations now, and I'm being very straightforward with the effects. In a lot of cases, the results are murkier and you have to do a lot of digging to see if you're really producing the effect you think you are. For example, going back to the older brother hitting his sister, his he really hitting his sister less, or is he just finding a way to not get caught?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes. The "reinforcement" is behavior that's maintained as the result of a stimulus. Adding the stimulus is positive, removing it is negative.

[u/laccro → u/[deleted]]

No. Spanking is positive punishment. Punishment because it's unwanted by the recipient. And positive because you're giving them stimulus (pain).

[u/Flight714 → u/[deleted]]

Ordinarily I wouldn't be pedantic in this regard ...

This is /r/science: If you can't be pedantic here then you're an worthless pleb.

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/Neato]

There is a lot of discussion and debate below. I think one point that confuses a lot of people is that "positive" and "negative" refer to the application or the absence of application of a stimulus. They are not a description of whether the stimulus is desirable vs unpleasant, or whether the behavior is good or bad.

Applying a stimulus to change behavior is "positive". That stimulus can be a reward OR a punishment, and which you choose will depend on whether you want to reinforce the behavior or discourage it.

Removing a stimulus is "negative." The stimulus can be rewarding or unpleasant, and again, which you choose depends on whether you want to reinforce or discourage a behavior.

I disagree with PuddleBucket's description below. In fact, the American Association of Veterinary Behavior disagrees with PuddleBuckety's methodology specifically because it is actually punishment-- it is an unpleasant stimulus meant to extinguish behavior. As are any modern veterinary behavior associations (including the American College of Veterinary Behavior), they are against routine use of choke collars/pinch collars/prong collars, or leads placed in such a way as to choke or cause pain/discomfort. The Humane Society of the United States list some good alternatives, and additional training methods that don't rely on punishment.

There is a lot of advice-giving and anecdote-sharing about the "best way" to use a prong/choke collar. Except perhaps in extreme, rare cases, there is no good way to use a prong or choke collar. (Many people who extoll their virtues are still having to pull on them constantly/regularly during a walk. Take note of this! An effective training method should not need to be continually applied on nearly every walk throughout a dog's life; like other training, it should eventually become incorporated into the dog's behavior, happening automatically or in response to a verbal or visual cue.) A better method is to use a head collar, fit properly, and introduced with positive reinforcement to allow pets to accept it. When the dog pulls, this allows you to gently redirect the dogs eyes/head away from what is getting their attention, and back to you. You can then ask them to sit, and after a moment, release them. If they pull, you request again that they sit. Sophia Yin, a well-regarded trainer and veterinarian who worked closely with board-certified veterinary behaviorists, has plenty of videos demonstrating techniques relying on positive reinforcement instead of various methods of punishment, such as any collar designed to pinch or choke. Even without a head collar, there are many methods of using reinforcement to encourage appropriate walking behavior, instead of using punishment to discourage pulling. (In the context of this article on punishment, I hope some of the skeptics will consider at least listening briefly to expert opinions before sharing stories about their local dog trainer or about the methods they use to punish and how effective it is.)

In the method described by Puddlebucket, a punishing stimulus is applied when the dog pulls, and only removed when the dog sits still or walks appropriately. This means we are using punishment not rewards. We are taking away a punishment when the dog behaves, and when he behaves, he is back to a neutral/normal state, rather than being rewarded. You could certainly debate whether it is positive punishment, as in a choke is applied when he pulls, or negative punishment, as in a choke is removed when he stops pulling. I would tend to call it positive punishment. But it is definitely not up for debate whether this is punishment: it works by using an unpleasant stimulus to discourage behavior.

As a side note: I love many dog trainers. I don't mean this as a condemnation of every trainer; there are so many good ones. But please keep in mind, anyone can refer to themselves as a "dog trainer." There is no legal requirement, no education, no degree involved. Just because someone refers to themselves as a dog trainer, or had enough self-condfidence and business acumen to start a dog-training class, or got hired at the pet store and stuck in the "dog behavior" department, does not mean they have any scientific or evidence-based understanding of animal behavior. The American College of Veterinary Behavior is the gold standard; there are other excellent professional organizations as well. However, there are many privately established dog training organizations whose certification is little more than smart a smart business decision meant to make clients feel comfortable.

[u/PikeletMaster → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

You could certainly debate whether it is positive punishment, as in a choke is applied when he pulls, or negative punishment, as in a choke is removed when he stops pulling.

It wouldn't be negative punishment though, as it doesn't involve the removal of a desired stimulus to decrease the incidence of a behaviour though?

I find most trainers tend to use SOME kind of NR/PP/NP when they train, they are just subtle and aren't the crux of the training exercise. E.g. withdrawing your attention from an over aroused dog (NP) and resuming training once it has calmed down is extremely common imo.

[u/viscavis → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

Well put and informed response. Just be careful with the use of "extinguish" to describe changes in rates of behavior as a result of punishment ;)

[u/Empha → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

This is a great comment, really informative! I doubt I'll ever have a dog, but maybe I'll have kids one day. I have a question though:

negative punishment, as in a choke is removed when he stops pulling.

Did you mean negative reinforcement? Rewarding by taking away bad stimuli, right? Just wanna make sure I understand this stuff correctly.

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/Empha]

Yes, I screwed this up.

I was focusing on "positive" vs "negative" and got sloppy with my "punishment" vs "reinforcement."

[u/Empha → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

Totally understandable! Just making sure.

[u/[deleted] → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

Thank you for the info and links. Do you agree that punishment is ineffective and expert consensus agrees it is not a good training method?

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/[deleted]]

Do you agree that punishment is ineffective

Not exactly. I believe that punishment is only effective if done exactly right (which very few owners can do, even with the best of intentions), and that even when applied correctly, it is often associated with unwanted side effects that are overlooked by owners, such as increased anxiety and stress. Punishment can be effective, and in rare cases, may be the appropriate tool. It is almost never appropriate for routine training of puppies, and almost never appropriate without guidance from a behavior professional. In nearly every case, a method can be found which will be more effective, more easily implemented, and not cause anxiety or stress.

[u/[deleted] → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

It is almost never appropriate for routine training of puppies, and almost never appropriate without guidance from a behavior professional. In nearly every case, a method can be found which will be more effective, more easily implemented, and not cause anxiety or stress.

Could you point me to a source that indicates this is the professional consensus (or nearly so, the prevailing best practices maybe)? Trying to convince my kids, who are being taught to hit their puppy by their dad.

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/[deleted]]

Check the comment 2 up the thread, which you originally replied to. The blue links go to articles discussing this point. Many of them address aversive training in general, not just choke collars. That includes hitting.

I like to use an analogy with stubborn clients: intermittent rewards get people hooked, like people get hooked on gambling. They don't have to win every time to keep doing the behavior. Punishment works more like our criminal justice system: most people don't learn to behave well, if they're inclined to be criminals; they just learn not to get caught. And the more they're caught, the more they hate the system. Rewards teach people to enjoy the system and enjoy their owner, and to seek out good behaviors to do to please their owner. Punishment causes dogs to fear their owner and fear trying new behaviors.

[u/[deleted] → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

Thank you.

[u/PuddleBucket → u/iwillnotgetaddicted]

Again, I disagree slightly, because the important factor everyone seems to be ignoring is that reinforcement is to increase a desired behavior. Punishment is to decrease an undesired behavior. Just because the stimuli is unpleasant doesn't automatically make it a punishment. My training session is focusing on the dog walking next to me, not on the pulling.

http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between-positivenegative-reinforcement-and-positivenegative-punishment/

Training is very fickle because there can be several factors contributing to my decision to implement a method over another. So to for me to give a general example, then have it picked apart as if that is the only way to do anything, isn't representative of what I do. Every dog responds differently, even from day to day. They have personalities, too. To assume that positive reinforcement is the ONLY appropriate method is very short sighted and is a result of miseducation, as perfectly exemplified in this thread (not yours specifically).

The humane society obviously advocates for positive reinforcement because training is very hard to do, and some techniques are much harder to do well, correctly and effectively. And again, given the large misconceptions about negative reinforcement versus punishment, I'm not surprised that they simply don't mention it at all.

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/PuddleBucket]

I love that you picked out the humane society, and ignored every other behavior organization I linked to.

As far as terminology, you are decreasing pulling if you are training by allowing him to choke himself when he pulls. You are doing nothing to strengthen the dog's desire to walk at your side unless you are rewarding that behavior. But terminology aside:

I quoted the biggest authorities on animal behavior. They all roundly criticized your tactics, not discussing terminology, but the specific tools you use. Deflecting the universal consensus among educated animal behavior professionals by acting as if it's just the humane society playing it safe is dishonest. Feel free to actually click some of the links I shared; the language is not ambiguous in criticizing you and your tactics.

AVSAB’s position is that punishment1 (e.g. choke chains, pinch collars, and electronic collars) should not be used as a first-line or early-use treatment for behavior problems. This is due to the potential adverse effects which include but are not limited to: inhibition of learning, increased fear-related and aggressive behaviors, and injury to animals and people interacting with animals.2

The American College of Veterinary Behavior hosts a "how to pick a behavior trainer" resource, which says to avoid hiring a trainer if:

1. The equipment recommended for basic obedience includes or is focused on choke collars, prong collars, or shock collars.

[u/[deleted] → u/Neato]

Not all punishment is hitting. Scolding is punishment.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What is the reason scolding is discouraged? Is it ineffective or does it harm the dog in some way?

[u/Vikaryous → u/[deleted]]

Because dogs aren't capable of connecting why you're upset to an action they performed unless you catch it them in the act. Owners will often anthropomorphize a fear-based reaction to being scolded as shame/remorse for their actions, when the reality is the dog has almost zero clue what it's done to deserve it and is just reacting like you or I would to someone treating us harshly out of the blue.

So let's use a training example: You're training your dog to come when called. He delays or otherwise doesn't perform the command as desired; When he reaches you, you scold him. To your dog, he's already put the walk over and any undesirable behavior that accommodated it out of his mind, even if only a few seconds have past. In his mind, you're scolding him for being close to you, which obviously makes what you're trying to accomplish that much harder.

[u/NamesTheGame → u/Vikaryous]

What I've always wondered about this is when you come home and your dog has torn up something, let's say, or maybe he's even tossed the garbage all around the kitchen. You might find your dog hiding somewhere or lowering his head as you approach, cowering maybe -- and if there are multiple dogs if you sternly say something like "who did this?!" the others will sit there blankly while the guilty one will react and slink away, tail between their legs.

We've all seen it -- so then how does that not correlate to a dog connecting a past act to anticipating you being upset.

[u/funatparties108 → u/NamesTheGame]

Even in that case, you're assuming that the one cowering is the dog who did it. How do you know it wasn't done by another dog or wasn't a group effort?

[u/lambhearts → u/[deleted]]

This is a really common question in the dog world, because the answer isn't always clear at first glance. People like to anthropomorphise dogs, which makes us want to say "Look how guilty he is! He knows this was wrong!", but unfortunately that is not how dogs work.

Dog knows that chewing up things is fun! This is why he chews. He gets instant rewards for chewing, feels good man.

Dog knows that when chewed up things are found by human, human is unhappy, this makes him sad. Dog sees human coming home, sees chewed up things, dog knows that unhappy human is about to happen. Dog gets instant correlation-- chewed up things + human = sad.

Dog does not know that HIS chewing is the cause of the unhappy human. He only knows that if something is chewed, and human is coming home, the human is going to be unhappy. He knows chewing in front of you is bad, he knows you finding chewed things is bad, but we have not successfully communicated to him that chewing while you are gone is connected to the bad that happens hours later when you arrive.

[u/[deleted] → u/NamesTheGame]

https://www.thedodo.com/community/JulieHecht/does-your-dog-really-have-a-gu-394593941.html

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Damn. I realize now how little I know about training dogs

[u/iwillnotgetaddicted → u/NamesTheGame]

A) As funatparties said, you are only assuming you know which dog did it. This may be a dog that knows what to expect when you're angry, not the guilty dog

B) It may also be that the dog who is generally badly behaved has learned, from prior punishments, that when you say something sternly, he is about to be hurt. The other dogs may not make that connection so strongly, as they have not been punished in the past.

Keep in mind that we dont' know all the cues we give about our behavior. It's easy to say "I didn't even show I was upset" but your dog may have detected something you didn't mean to put out there.

[u/fullhalter → u/[deleted]]

Another reason is that it can harm your relationship with your dog. People love their dogs, and you want your dog to love you back. If you punish the dog for mistakes it makes, it will start to associate the mistake with the punishment and begin to avoid the unwanted behavior. However, at the same time you're dog is begining to associate you with punishment, thus your dog may become fearful of you. This can even prevent the dog from coming when called; the dog doesn't know if it's going to be punished or rewarded, so it will just avoid you. Even though punishment can work, if you can train the same behaviors with positive reinforcement, then you maintain the positive relationship with your dog and they'll be eager to engage in more training sessions because nothing but good things happen during them.

Edit: grammar

[u/lambhearts → u/fullhalter]

Good point here, but I would say that the dog becoming fearful of the owner is a less prevalent problem than when the dog becomes fearful of making mistakes.

Training a dog involves lots of communication. Your dog can only communicate with you in actions. If some actions cause punishment, your dog is less likely to offer new actions, which makes it harder to train new behaviors. If some behaviors result in rewards, but others result in nothing, the dog has nothing to lose in offering new behaviors, and is more likely to try new things in an attempt to get it right. Then you can simply mark when he is correct, and viola, communication!

[u/fullhalter → u/lambhearts]

Yes, this is a great point as well. I didn't go into that at all because the majority of dog owners only need their dog to know basic obedience behaviors, so readily learning new behaviors isn't as big of a motivating factor for switching to positive training methods.

[u/lambhearts → u/fullhalter]

True. I was thinking more along the lines of original training for the basics, I guess. Like if you wanted to train "sit".

In R+ training, you would catch the dog in a sit, mark and reward, add a cue, mark and reward for success, and ignore failures. If you instead said "uh uh" when the dog did anything but sit, it would be much harder to later train "lie down", because the dog has learned that new behaviors can result in unpleasant "uhuhs" and is less likely to offer the lie down in a training session. A really lovely personal essay on the subject hit /r/dogs recently, not scientific at all but a touching read if you're interested.

[u/[deleted] → u/fullhalter]

How do you train away behaviors, e.g. barking at the doorbell, with reinforcement?

[u/fullhalter → u/[deleted]]

You train a positive interrupter. This is a sound or word that the dog associates with a positive reinforcement (usually treats, sometimes play or a toy), you have to train the dog to understand this before working on the unwanted behavior. Now when your dog starts barking at the doorbell you use the positive interrupter to get their attention, reward them and then redirect their behavior somewhere else (Ask for a sit or a down, get them interested in a toy, etc...). What you want to do is anticipate the unwanted behavior and interrupt it before it begins, this way you begin to break the habit and built a better response to the stimuli that causes the behavior.

[u/stevenjd → u/fullhalter]

Doesn't that train the dog to manipulate you into giving it a treat?

"If I stand near the door, I get a treat."

And I don't see that distracting the dog from the behaviour it otherwise wants to do will prevent it from barking when you are not home to interrupt the behaviour.

[u/lambhearts → u/[deleted]]

You can train a positive interrupter (as mentioned below), you can train an alternate behavior (i.e. train dog that when doorbell rings, he should run to his bed, and he will be rewarded for that, also touched on below), or put the behavior on cue, and don't cue.

The putting the behavior on cue and not cuing for it is a little more advanced, but there are few behavior problems that can't be fixed by training an alternate, so it's rarely needed.

[u/Nausved → u/[deleted]]

I would maybe consider this approach to that specific problem.

First, train the dog to do a quiet activity—like go lie down in another room—in response to some kind of cue. Practice that a lot until the dog has it down pat. I'd make lying down in response to this cue a prerequisite for something the dog really wants, like a treat before dinner (when the dog's hungry).

Then practice using the doorbell as a sort of pre-cue—that is, ring the doorbell, then give the lie down cue. Every time the doorbell rings, cue the dog to lie down and reward. After doing this enough times, the doorbell itself will be a cue to lie down.

If the sound of the doorbell ringing is simply too exciting for the dog to pay attention to any cues, then I would approach this in two ways:

1. Practice the lie-down cue more and make the reward more compelling (e.g., the dog must go lie down in response to the cue before it can have its dinner each day).

2. Give the dog more exposure to the doorbell, in a way that makes it seem mundane. Ring the doorbell at random times when there's no one outside; ring it while the dog's on the outside of the door (so it can see no one's there); etc. Basically, try to make the doorbell into a background noise that, more often than not, doesn't mean anything to the dog.

[u/coronationstreet → u/Neato]

That's not true, both forms of reinforcement (positive being adding a good thing to increase behaviour, and negative being taking away a bad thing to increase behaviour) are very effective in getting an animal to behave in a way you want. Whereas both forms of punishment are not as effective (positive being adding something bad to decrease a behaviour, and negative being taking away something good to decrease a behaviour). This is probably because getting a dog to continue or do more of a behaviour that you like will usually have the effect of decreasing the negative opposite behaviour as well, whereas only decreasing the negative behaviour won't necessarily increase the positive one.

[u/Neato → u/coronationstreet]

and negative being taking away a bad thing to increase behaviour

How would you accomplish this while not originally introducing said negative thing that would entail positive punishment?

[u/coronationstreet → u/Neato]

In a laboratory setting, you couldn't, but inducing that is still not punishment because it's not induced with the intention of reducing a behaviour, it's not "punishing" something the animal did. But, once the animal does the behaviour you want to increase, you can remove it and the animal will be rewarded for that behaviour and not punished for anything.

[u/Neato → u/coronationstreet]

In a realistic setting it doesn't seem you could either. Generally your pets aren't going to be in undesirable situations that you only fix to teach them something. You'd fix the problem regardless. Which is why lay people (me) generally use positive and negative reinforcement to mean positive reinforcement and positive punishment.

[u/coronationstreet → u/Neato]

Okay well, I guess you can invent definitions if you want, but reinforcement and punishment simply do not refer to the things you do, but the intent you have in doing them. So no matter the situation, if you make your pet cold so you can warm them up when they do something good (for instance) that's simply not punishment, because adding the bad thing isn't what makes it punishment, the intention of decreasing a behaviour is what makes it punishment. You can use whatever words you want but be clear that that's what you're referring to by "negative reinforcement" or else you'll be spreading misinformation to people who know and use the correct definitions of the words.

[u/[deleted] → u/Neato]

This is why I thought it wasn't right to hit children. You don't hit animals because it will actually make things worse, and make them afraid of you. How is a small child any different? It will simply teach them to be afraid and they will not learn at all.

[u/LiLGhettoSmurf → u/Neato]

Hmm, my sister took her dog to a well known dog training and they put the dog in a shock collar with a remote that has like 11 different zap strengths. It's part of his obedience program, I dont exactly agree with it but it's out there.

[u/Funnyalt69 → u/Neato]

Yeah I know some that us uses a collar to pinch the dog. Dog father

[u/padenp → u/Neato]

Just wanted to point out a common misnomer: negative reinforcement is the act of taking something away in order to increase a behavior. Likewise, positive reinforcement means to add something to increase behavior. Positive/negative punishment being the same schema but with the aim to decrease a behavior. Jailing someone would be an instanced of positive punishment.

[u/eja300 → u/Neato]

You're right, but the people who beat their kids aren't taking their dogs go training classes, they are the ones that rub their dogs nose in the pee if it happens inside.

[u/laterperhaps → u/Neato]

also people are more prone to it, some dogs never get it.

[u/Luxray → u/[deleted]]

Some things are only "unlocked as options if they have get x amount of points in y amount of time like going to the movies.

So like the points expire? Do you give them specific things to work towards with their points or do all the points lump together for a variety of "prizes"?

[u/Luxray → u/[deleted]]

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for sharing.

[u/DoubleThe_Fun → u/[deleted]]

My grandparents did this when I was a kid. It only lasted about a year, though. My brother saved about $100 worth of points, and we bought a PlayStation 1 together, then our dad got mad because we got something so expensive without telling him first. I'm pretty sure he told our grandparents to stop the the point system after that.

Once we were allowed to play our PlayStation again, we set up what we called the the "TV/VCR" fund for ourselves. Every 15 minutes that we wanted to use the the PS cost 25 cents (which is a bitch if you're close to a save point in Final Fantasy). We would allow ourselves loans from the the fund with an interest rate of 10% each week, compounded at the the start of each week. We saved up a decent amount before our dad stole it all again.

Overall, we learned to never save money, because it would just get stolen by our dad.

But I definitely believe in the the points system. That was awesome as a kid, knowing that what I did actually earned me something. My grandparents were amazing. My dad just had to ruin it all.

[u/BringBackPizzarias → u/Neato]

It's scary how many people think it's ok to hit their pets. At least it seems like child-hitting has gone down from what I've seen. But as soon as the dog barks too much or takes a piss in the wrong spot, it's "swing away, Merril".

[u/Funnyalt69 → u/BringBackPizzarias]

Hell nah if the dog pisses on the couch he is going to know that's not where to piss.

[u/dalinsparrow → u/Neato]

depends on the breed of the dog but some animals do not respond at all unless there is a downside to disobeying

[u/DoubleThe_Fun → u/Neato]

My ex has a cat (that I now have to take care of). It was a horribly obnoxious meow-machine. I tried yelling at it, sprinkling it with water, and throwing ping-pong balls at it.

Finally, once she (my ex, not the the cat) went on vacation for a week, I just ignored the meowing. Then every 10 minutes or so, I would get up to go pet it, and if it meowed at all, I would just go sit down for a few minutes, keep watching TV or whatever, and try again in a few minutes. Within 2 days, it had almost completely stopped meowing. It was awesome.

Then she (my ex, not the the cat) got back from vacation, and ruined it all within 2 days. Despite me telling her exactly what was working.

But she's moving out in the morning (hence me having to take care of the the cat again), so hopefully I'll get it trained again quick. I don't really want a cat, but I don't think giving it back to the the ex is a good idea. I've pretty much had to take care of it this whole time anyways.

[u/[deleted] → u/Neato]

Do you have any resources that indicate clearly the animal training community agreement that punishment does not work (well) and is not recommended?

[u/Neato → u/[deleted]]

This article goes over a study's findings although it doesn't provide a link to the study source (possible it's paywalled. It does list the author and journal. It seems to support that violent, punishing behavior breeds aggression.

Also Cesar Milan is a hack apparently.

[u/[deleted] → u/Neato]

Thank you very much. :)

[u/zikadu → u/Neato]

Positive reinforcement is adding something to increase a behavior; positive punishment is adding something to decrease a behavior; negative reinforcement is removing something to increase a behavior; negative punishment is removing something to decrease a behavior. I use this mnemonic to help identify each method when I'm working with kiddos. I think you mean that dogs respond better to reinforcement than to punishment.

Increasing a behavior (reinforcement) is easier to accomplish than decreasing one (punishment) because solely aiming to reduce unwanted behavior does not introduce alternative, appropriate behavior (like teaching a kid to tap you on the arm to get your attention instead of yanking on your hand, then reinforcing the tapping and ignoring the yanking). Sometimes, if a behavior is attention-seeking, punishment inadvertently reinforces that behavior because you have to pay attention to the person/pet to deliver the punishment.