Does positive reinforcement ONLY training work???

[fostermom]

We are fostering an untrained, undersocialized adolescent male rottweiler so are dealing with issues related to all of the above (ie, him being untrained, also undersocialized, plus the adolescent and male rotti issues!!!). He is a wonderful boy and has huge potential but he can be unruly and "reactive". I have been working with him with traditional methods to teach basic obedience...when we got him he really didn't understand or if he did understand he didn't comply with even basic sit or down commands...within two weeks he was doing hour downstays!!
I started him as well on clicker training and it is AMAZING what he is learning utilyzing this...three sessions and he's doing mock rally courses...the trainer said he'd be a GREAT rally dog. The trainer utilizes strictly positive reinforcement...told us to ignore bad behaviors, reward appropriate behaviors, offer appropriate alternatives when he is behaving "badly". So I've been trying...BUT the other night he kept jumping on me. When I ignored the behavior he seemed to escalate it, barking and grabbing at my pants legs and sleeves....after the third time in about half an hour that he did that, I caved and YELLED! Total change in behavior with no problems the rest of the night. I told the trainer that he was acting like a kid off or restrictions...knew he could get away with anything so was acting out...and that his behavior improved dramatically when I corrected him...got this response:
Oh dear...frankly Judy, the problem is that you are so entwined in the old "make them behave or else" methodology that it is inhibiting your ability to grasp the concept of giving dogs a choice and rewarding the correct choices. Dogs do what is rewarding for them...PERIOD
.
So is it harmful to correct a dog or utilyze more traditional training methods in conjunction with positive reinforcement or is strictly positive reinforcement really better?? I'm ready to be beat up here LOL!!

[hokisteph5]

I don't think so, but I'm not an expert. I just started a class with Gretchen last night that's teaching clicker training. I'm hoping it will be the 'missing link' I've been looking for to bolster her reliability to my commands. Right before you started this thread, I was out looking at some clicker-related links and came across this tidbit: "...it is possible to train reliable companion, competition, and working animals using a combination of R+, extinction, and (to a far lesser extent) P-. We subscribe to this premise, which is continually proven in practice: Animals learn best when their own capabilities are encouraged and directed into behaviors that help them live well with humans. We set up the animals to succeed, and then reward them for their successes."

Here's the link and here's a legend of what R+, extinction, and P- means (NOTE: I've seen other members explain the different training methods using similar methodology, but thought it never hurts to share it again):

What are R+, R-, P+, P-, and extinction?
You'll see these abbreviations pop up on the list fairly often. They are abbreviations for terms used in Operant Conditioning. They stand for:

Positive reinforcement (R+): something is added to increase the occurrence of a behavior. For example, you give the dog a treat to reinforce the sit.

Negative reinforcement (R-): something is removed to increase the occurrence of a behavior. For example, in the forced retrieve (not a clicker technique), a dog's ear is pinched to force him to open his mouth to take the dumbbell. When the dog opens his mouth -- the desired behavior -- the ear pinch is released.

Positive punishment (P+): something is added to decrease the occurrence of a behavior. For example, a collar pop is applied (not a clicker training technique) to discourage a dog from pulling on the lead.

Negative punishment (P-): something is removed to decrease the occurrence of a behavior. For example, turning away (removing attention) from a dog who is jumping up on you.

Extinction: weakening of behavior through lack of reinforcement. For example, your dog is learning what the cue "sit" means. You reinforce sits after cue, but ignore -- do not reinforce -- any other behavior. Other behaviors become less likely due to lack of reinforcement.

[2rotties2luv]

While I am by no means an expert, I would have done exactly the same as you. While it's important to reward the dog's correct choices of desired behavior, I do believe it's also important to let the dog know it when he's exhibiting undesirable behavior. How can you expect the dog to look to you as his leader if you don't tell him to knock it off when he's pushing your buttons?

[groupieindenial]

Originally Posted by fostermom

BUT the other night he kept jumping on me. When I ignored the behavior he seemed to escalate it, barking and grabbing at my pants legs and sleeves....after the third time in about half an hour that he did that, I caved and YELLED!

This is self rewarding behaviour, and obviously the dog did not understand you did not want him to do it, till you made that clear. Yelling may not have been the best choice, but in this case is seemed to get the message accross, loud and clear. I would not make it a habit though.

I don't believe in any one single method. LIke your trainer, I do believe in "incentive" and training the dog in drive and creating "movitated" training behaviours. It is not the only way to train, especially with strong willed rottweilers. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. My second trainer when my boy was a pup, trains and teaches other trainers using "purely positive" methods. I was given some advice, that she would not have normally given out to even her own student trainers to be. But she is a good dog behaviourist, and she knows dogs.

Originally Posted by fostermom

the problem is that you are so entwined in the old "make them behave or else" methodology that it is inhibiting your ability to grasp the concept of giving dogs a choice and rewarding the correct choices. Dogs do what is rewarding for them...PERIOD

Do it or else is compulsion. Thats not really what we're talking about here. Well, I dunno about anyone else. But when you let the dog thinks he has a choice, your not always going to get the response you are "hoping" for. Example. Dog has basic OB, comes when called but its not lightning speed or anything. Responds in your house, when out in the yard. Okay, so your at your friends, the dogs are playing out back...you call your dog....Hmmm....a dog with a "choice" is not going to come, he will "choose" to keep playing, cuz well, thats more fun. A dog that doesn't think, just does it because he was trained with motivation and drive, is going to stop whateve rhe is doing and high tail it to you. Why? Because he didn't think he had the choice, he does it because he was programmed to do it. Do it now, do it fast. Period. No compulsion, just using drives and motivation.

There arent just 2 ways to train , 1)purely positive 2) compulsion - which is what your trainer is implying. If you don't train my way, you are using compulsion. I think I speak on behalf of many members here that we use various bits and peices of many different methods tailored specifically to our dog. One method of training doesn't work for every dog and breed. Period.

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by fostermom

Oh dear...frankly Judy, the problem is that you are so entwined in the old "make them behave or else" methodology that it is inhibiting your ability to grasp the concept of giving dogs a choice and rewarding the correct choices. Dogs do what is rewarding for them...PERIOD
.
So is it harmful to correct a dog or utilyze more traditional training methods in conjunction with positive reinforcement or is strictly positive reinforcement really better?? I'm ready to be beat up here LOL!!

Okay - stop beating yourself up.

Yes - positive training is important, gets great results and shapes a dog into what you want them to do while what you don't, slowly fades into the background as it doesn't reward them.

You don't mention hold old this dog is, but I'm assuming a young adult. Either way - this is a large animal. NO ONE should expect to let a large dog like a rottweiler accost you like that. This young male was pushing your buttons and wanted to see how far he could push you.

Yes, you needed to correct him. Yes, yelling at him was warranted. Let's be clear here. You didn't beat him. You didn't hurt him. You didn't isolate him. All you did was yell. And you know what? IT WORKED! LOL

Your reaction was completely within the scope of the behaviour he was giving you. You didn't go above and beyond. You only did it once.

I would say that 95% of the time, you do work with positive reinforcement. However, there are times that warrant a correction. Especially when the behaviour could rise to the point where it could cause injury (nails, biting, pushing off balance, etc.). He needed to know that there was a limit and now he does.

I would just leave it and move on. You did just fine.

[AngelBunny]

We're active in rescue. For almost nine years, we've fostered one male after another. We don't foster puppies because of our work schedule and we don't foster females because our two girls rule.

Some fosters have been model citizens with impeccable manners. Others have spent little or no time in a house and don't understand how to climb stairs, aren't housetrained, are mouthy, jump up, countersurf, etc etc.

Training these dogs involves a combination of stick and carrot. I use different approaches, depending on the dog. Strictly positive training is wonderful for puppies. Not so wonderful for a knuckle-headed young male who's full of himself, in my experience.

You did the right thing. You didn't strike him. You spoke to him in a loud, firm voice And that is obviously what the dog needed, based on his change in behavior.

[dogsbydoug]

While I do my darndest not to raise my voice with the pup (6 months old), there ARE times when I have to use a more firm tone with her when telling her to KNOCK IT OFF when she keeps thinking my feet are better chew toys than her actual toys and redirection alone just isn't cutting it...

A firm and somewhat louder "NO" as I remove my toes from her mouth and insert a stuffy into said mouth seems to get the point across...

I'm with AngelBunny...you do need to raise your voice at times if everything else just isn't sinking into their big heads!!

[Obelix]

If you use the best things of the different methods with common sense and a litle bit knowledge of dog-behaviour, you can get along quitte an end.Shouting and yelling does no good cause after a while he/she gets used to it and you only have to yell louder.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by fostermom

Oh dear...frankly Judy, the problem is that you are so entwined in the old "make them behave or else" methodology that it is inhibiting your ability to grasp the concept of giving dogs a choice and rewarding the correct choices. Dogs do what is rewarding for them...PERIOD

LOL, well it to me sounds like your "purely positive" trainer is using a good dose of subtle compulsion on YOU.

While yelling is not a preferred method to me, in my mind, it is disingenuous not to let a dog know when they are wrong, as well as when they are right. Sometimes letting them know involves the need for corrections, and I see nothing wrong with giving a correction where a correction is needed. Your dog evidently got the message he needed.

[hcelsa]

Originally Posted by fostermom

Dogs do what is rewarding for them...PERIOD

This quote from your trainer sums it up...yep, they do what is rewarding for them...PERIOD. For this particular dog the jumping/bouncing/grabbing behavior was rewarding for him, and so he kept doing it (the behavior was self-reinforcing) until you effectively broke his focus with your voice.

Sometimes it is necessary to take the "fun" out of behaviors that dogs find rewarding, but that are in appropriate in our human world (for example: we work on recalls with a whole lot of rescue dogs that started life untrained and need to learn that it's just not "fun" to do one's own thing). There are many ways to do that, it sounds like your raised voice worked well in this situation. Of course in the ideal situation where you start with a puppy it's not always necessary (especially if you do a good job of convincing said puppy that YOU are the best thing in his/her life), but it's much different when working with an unruly adult dog (with little to no training and/or socialization to start with).

[spidey]

There are many trainers who are extremely successful without using physical positive punishment methods like leash corrections. But most of the people who are very successful with this (I train with one, who has multiple OTCHs to her name) are also anything but permissive with their dogs, they tend to follow strict NILIF programs (not harsh, but their dogs work for everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING), they tend to work with their dogs many times a day, every single day, and they DO use things like negative punishment (taking away something the dog wants, as hokisteph5 explained) in addition to positive reinforcement. I have had very good success with my dog with a positive reinforcement/negative punishment method, but I do occasionally use voice corrections and very occasionally aversives like water sprays (my dog is a barker, and sometimes the only way to get the behaviour I want, not barking, which I can reward, is by interrupting the behaviour I don't want).

While I'm very strongly an advocate of positive training, I think it's very misleading when trainers say they ONLY use positive reinforcement, since most people who characterise themselves as "positive" trainers (and who are also good, successful dog trainers who understand dog behaviour) more accurately use MOSTLY positive reinforcement, but also negative punishment and occasionally some negative reinforcement, with positive punishment being used as little as possible. Shouting at your dog to interrupt his behaviour is really not a big deal, especially if it leads to you getting a behaviour (not barking) which you can then reinforce positively.

[Rottlva]

I agree with all of the above, but I have a wee bit to add.

You mentioned this boy is being labled as "reactive". It is often the smartest, quickest dogs that are labled as "reactive". They lack impulse control, are super sensitve to stimuli, and in the right hands can become fantastic competitors, but they are alot of work! Having my own "reactive" dog, I have learned alot. The most important thing is reactive behavior does not merit an excited response, or the behavior heightens. With my reactive dog, I've utilized the clicker for alot of things, because it is an emotionless tool. My voice can signal excitement, my voice can signal trepidation. I've used the clicker to shape an "auto watch" when in the prescence of overstimulating things: other dogs, skateboards, etc. I've used a clicker to tone down mouthing on dumbells as any change in my voice signaling something happy would increase the mouthing, I've used the clicker when teaching hand signals in absence of my voice.

All that being said, I think that yelling may have it's place, however, I bet snapping a leash on this fresh youngster, quieting your body language, and asking for a sit might have worked. Often reactive dogs do a certain behavior because it works for them. Finding them something else to do, a watch instead of lunging at passerby, a sit instead of jumping, whatever, is starting to change the behavior into one which you find acceptable.

Chin up. You'll get there with this boy!

[JemarsSerena]

We all talk about using "leave it" or "drop it" I always add in "QUIT IT". These are all ways of teaching a dog to stop an unwanted behavior and none can be called positive reinforcement. I'd say you were right on target. It's great to let a dog know when it is doing the right thing, but occasionally stopping the wrong thing before it escalates is perfectly acceptable in my book.

[Carol Burke]

Positive reinforcement is a great way to train, however, once a dog knows an exercise or a behavior that is unacceptable and chooses to not comply I feel a correction is in order.

[Rottlva]

Originally Posted by Carol Burke

Positive reinforcement is a great way to train, however, once a dog knows an exercise or a behavior that is unacceptable and chooses to not comply I feel a correction is in order.

While I do agree with this, I disagree at the same time. As trainers it is our responsibility to make the commands we give crystal clear and to proof them in all environments. All too often I see someone offer a command that the dog has learned at home, but hasn't learned around other dogs, on different footing, whatever. Realizing that sit means sit weather it is from a down, from a stand, from a distance, whatever takes training to a different level.

I mention this because before I correct my dog, I look long good and hard at how I trained an exercise, and why the dog may not be doing what I've asked. Yes, the dog may just be blowing you off, but often the lines of communication were broken along the way, and there was a miscommunication. In this instance, correcting the dog adds to the stress, ends up confusing, and in some dogs, cascades the behavior.

Working at utility with my eldest rottie, I chose to use NRM's (Non reward markers) "oops" was ours. I really feel at that level, if a dog is not listening, he is either a confused, you are not making the work enjoyable, or you never taught the exercise completely.

I hope I've been clear. Again, yes, I feel there is a place for corrections. But ask yourself, have I truly taught my dog what I am asking him to do, and what can I do to make him succeed?