When my kids were little, some of their favorite books belonged to the “Choose Your Own Adventure” genre. Periodically, the stories ask readers to decide where they think the story should go next. Then it refers them to the appropriate page in the book that will continue the chosen adventure. Much duller adult versions of this kind of progressive problem analysis take the form of decision trees, flowcharts, and algorithms.
Another variation of this approach also deliberately or intuitively occurs in animal-training. In the US where behaviorism with its reward/punishment options dominates training thought, it works like this. First, people decide whether they want to use reward or punishment. Most opt for reward and particularly treats because these currently generate the most positive emotional charge and media feedback. More often than not–at least initially–they’re also the easiest to use.
What those who opt for punishment begin with also depends on multiple reasons. And as with treats, some of these reasons are more valid than others. Those aware of behaviorism’s history often begin with shock-emitting systems of one sort or another. Those taking a less-is-more approach may choose what they consider gentler punishments such as irritating scents, irritating or painful noises, whaps with rolled newspapers, jerks on choke or prong collars.
If the animal’s perceived problem behavior disappears in response to the reward or punishment, the reward or punishment gradually is phased out. When this occurs, the job is done. Or so the theory goes. However, for some people phasing out treats or punishment is a lot easier said than done. Some dogs and owners exposed to this process in a 6-8 week may perceive the reward/punishment as always necessary to ensure obedience.
Persistent reward or punishment also may signal a trust issue for some people. They don’t trust their animals to behave without some outside inducement. Jane can’t believe Frisky would obey simply because he wants to do what she wants him to do. She doesn’t deserve a good dog like that. Other times people don’t want to give up what they consider tangible evidence of their power over the animal, i.e. the treats or the punishments. They need on-going, concrete proof of their control.
In some cases, rewarding or punishing may move into the pathological realm. These folks gain enough pleasure from dispensing rewards or punishment that they continue long after the need to do so has past. Sad to say, some of these people seem to enjoy forcing animals to eat treats the animals don’t want to eat under stressful conditions. Or they may punish the animal for the smallest and even imaginary infractions to force the animal to focus on them at all times. Sometimes these exaggerated responses result in what those people consider well-behaved animals. Other times, the animals may succumb to stress-related physical and behavioral may result in the animal’s euthanasia.
In companion animals another phenomenon—learned laziness—occurs when treats or punishment persist. These animals only obey to get a treat or avoid punishment. Because on average this means these animals obey roughly 90% of the time, it’s easy to believe that more or better treats or more or more painful punishment will take care of the remaining 10%. If this doesn’t work, some people may call it quits and give up or euthanize the animal.
As I’ve watched this phenomenon increase over the years, I suspect that it’s a good example of cultural learning. 
Cultural learning is that knowledge passesd between generations as well as among peers. More companion animals seem to be learning this technique sooner and faster than their predecessors. And what better place for this to occur than in those locations where people congregate with their dogs or other companion animals?
But as I see more intra- and international transport animals, I also suspect that the potential to game the reward/punishment system may be a lot more deeply entrenched in them. Successful animals who survived on their and descend from generations of others who have done likewise appear to take a more opportunistic view of humans. This makes sense. Unlike animals from long lines of those bred for human dependency more willing to accept what we give them, animals who know they can make it on their own or who possess the genetic potential to do so may not cut us as much slack. In that case, they may accept any teaching method–but only as long as its benefits to them exceeds any costs.
Regardless of the specific cause, some of the people working and living with these animals may begin to consider the possibility that the problem may lie more with the teaching method than with the animal. Admittedly, routinely teaching animals using methods that take into account what we know about human and animal cognition and emotions, as well as how humans and animals affect each other physiologically and emotionally probably won’t occur in my lifetime. Like the use of more traditional medical approaches, integrated human-animal mind-body-bond training approaches primarily remains the choice of two groups of people:
- those for whom conventional training hasn’t worked who don’t believe their animals are stupid or demented, let alone worthy of euthanasia.
- those raised in more traditional cultures for whom the distance created between human and animal by behaviorism doesn’t exist.
For that 10% of those with problem animals and their animals, the 10% solution doesn’t mean doing more of the same faster or longer. It means doing something completely different.
Another variation of this approach also deliberately or intuitively occurs in animal-training. In the US where behaviorism with its reward/punishment options dominates training thought, it works like this. First, people decide whether they want to use reward or punishment. Most opt for reward and particularly treats because these currently generate the most positive emotional charge and media feedback. More often than not–at least initially–they’re also the easiest to use.
What those who opt for punishment begin with also depends on multiple reasons. And as with treats, some of these reasons are more valid than others. Those aware of behaviorism’s history often begin with shock-emitting systems of one sort or another. Those taking a less-is-more approach may choose what they consider gentler punishments such as irritating scents, irritating or painful noises, whaps with rolled newspapers, jerks on choke or prong collars.
If the animal’s perceived problem behavior disappears in response to the reward or punishment, the reward or punishment gradually is phased out. When this occurs, the job is done. Or so the theory goes. However, for some people phasing out treats or punishment is a lot easier said than done. Some dogs and owners exposed to this process in a 6-8 week may perceive the reward/punishment as always necessary to ensure obedience.
Persistent reward or punishment also may signal a trust issue for some people. They don’t trust their animals to behave without some outside inducement. Jane can’t believe Frisky would obey simply because he wants to do what she wants him to do. She doesn’t deserve a good dog like that. Other times people don’t want to give up what they consider tangible evidence of their power over the animal, i.e. the treats or the punishments. They need on-going, concrete proof of their control.
In some cases, rewarding or punishing may move into the pathological realm. These folks gain enough pleasure from dispensing rewards or punishment that they continue long after the need to do so has past. Sad to say, some of these people seem to enjoy forcing animals to eat treats the animals don’t want to eat under stressful conditions. Or they may punish the animal for the smallest and even imaginary infractions to force the animal to focus on them at all times. Sometimes these exaggerated responses result in what those people consider well-behaved animals. Other times, the animals may succumb to stress-related physical and behavioral may result in the animal’s euthanasia.
In companion animals another phenomenon—learned laziness—occurs when treats or punishment persist. These animals only obey to get a treat or avoid punishment. Because on average this means these animals obey roughly 90% of the time, it’s easy to believe that more or better treats or more or more painful punishment will take care of the remaining 10%. If this doesn’t work, some people may call it quits and give up or euthanize the animal.
As I’ve watched this phenomenon increase over the years, I suspect that it’s a good example of cultural learning.
Cultural learning is that knowledge passesd between generations as well as among peers. More companion animals seem to be learning this technique sooner and faster than their predecessors. And what better place for this to occur than in those locations where people congregate with their dogs or other companion animals?
But as I see more intra- and international transport animals, I also suspect that the potential to game the reward/punishment system may be a lot more deeply entrenched in them. Successful animals who survived on their and descend from generations of others who have done likewise appear to take a more opportunistic view of humans. This makes sense. Unlike animals from long lines of those bred for human dependency more willing to accept what we give them, animals who know they can make it on their own or who possess the genetic potential to do so may not cut us as much slack. In that case, they may accept any teaching method–but only as long as its benefits to them exceeds any costs.
Regardless of the specific cause, some of the people working and living with these animals may begin to consider the possibility that the problem may lie more with the teaching method than with the animal. Admittedly, routinely teaching animals using methods that take into account what we know about human and animal cognition and emotions, as well as how humans and animals affect each other physiologically and emotionally probably won’t occur in my lifetime. Like the use of more traditional medical approaches, integrated human-animal mind-body-bond training approaches primarily remains the choice of two groups of people:
For that 10% of those with problem animals and their animals, the 10% solution doesn’t mean doing more of the same faster or longer. It means doing something completely different.