There was an article in a Norwegian dog magazine (an English translation is in the comments’ section below) this week, essentially claiming that by delivering an electric shock to a dog a single time as it runs towards a flock of sheep, you can stop it from ever chasing sheep again. Indeed, it gets a diploma to show that it’s “sheep-proofed”. There are no other ways of teaching this behaviour, the article claims, and also, it suggests that it’s a way to increase the overall quality of life of the shocked dogs.
The article implies that a single shock in a single location is all it takes to make dogs sheep-proof forever.
Needless to say, this article has stirred a lot of feelings within the Norwegian R+ community.
And for good reason.
Now, I don’t train dogs myself, but reading through it I found I have four areas of concern:
I find the latest scientific contribution on the issue of shock collars to be frustrating – even outrageous.
Lots of problematic articles are published every day, but this one potentially has far-reaching consequences, and so I feel a lengthy, occasionally nerdy and also somewhat rambling blog post is in order.
I won’t describe the paper down to a T, but lift specific topics that I take issue with, so I encourage you to skim it before reading this post – or not…
In short, the authors found that teaching dogs to refrain from chasing a fast-moving lure was effective when shock-collars were used, however attempting to train the behaviour in a slightly shorter time frame using “food rewards” (50 minutes as opposed to 60 for the shocked dogs) was essentially useless. They also saw no signs of distress in the shocked dogs, except that all of them yelped in pain at some point.
I’m paraphrasing here, obviously.
And I’m using quotation marks to draw your attention to the fact that I’m not quite sure that they actually ever used those “food rewards” as reinforcement for correct behaviour in those treatment groups – the training setup was absolutely bananas, if you’ll pardon the pun (that last bit will make sense in a moment).
TL;DR? Here are the main points of this blog post:
- The “food-reward” training was a travesty with a multitude of problems (e.g. dubious conditioning, unwanted behaviour reinforced, no shaping, no assessment of engagement, no calibration of the reward value, adding distractions and distance way too soon, not using a marker, etc etc); no learning occurred
- The food-reward dogs got less training time than the shocked dogs
- The type of training needed to be successful in the tests was not in the protocol for the food-reward dogs
- The “welfare measures” were inadequate and possibly confounded
- Generalized fear learning occurred in the shocked dogs, a potential concern for their long-term wellbeing
- There was conflict of interest: shock-collar trainers training the “food-reward” dogs
- The authors conclude that shock collars may occasionally save lives without considering the risks of shock collars costing lives, which I suspect is on a different order of magnitude
- The problems are serious enough to warrant retraction of the paper
We’ll get to my detailed objections in a minute, but first off: I think the chosen approach, comparing several treatment groups, where essentially the only difference in training set-up is whether dogs receive a shock for doing the wrong behaviour, or a treat for doing the correct behaviour, is flawed.
It’s based on the proud tradition from other scientific fields such as biomedicine, whereby you compare two different treatment options, subjecting one group to treatment A and the other to treatment B, keeping all other variables identical in the two groups. And so, the theory goes, you can be sure that any differences between the groups will be a result of different effects of the two treatments, A or B, and not some other random factor such as the weather.
Typically, a biomedical study involves genetically identical rodents housed under standardized conditions, so that presumably, the only difference between the two study groups is which research treatment option (A or B) they’ve been given.Continue reading “A critique of the “banana” shock collar study”
Many of the chapters of my Advanced Animal Training course don’t lend themselves to be published as a stand-alone blog posts, since they build on each other.
But the chapter below, discussing the Matching Law, does!
***
Matching Law implies that animals (and humans) will do more of the behaviour that leads to the most favoured outcome, but they will keep offering the other, less well reinforced behaviour too, at least sometimes. Matching is affected by reinforcer quality, rate and delay of reinforcement – and response effort.
They consider them not just pointless, but disastrous, and many of them wouldn’t be caught dead using labels.
You might think I’m exaggerating for dramatic effect, and yes, I do have a penchant for hyperbole so it is entirely possible… but sometimes I do wonder.
As an ethologist, I had merrily been using labels for decades without even realizing that they could be problematic. It was not until I started hanging out with behaviour analysts that it was pointed out to me.
I had two main reactions to that insight:
Wow, it’s really useful to realize that labels can be very detrimental!
Wow, some people really don’t seem to realize how useful labels can be!
When are labels useful? Well, as is the case with literally everything related to animals and their behaviour, it depends on the context.
Labels are sometimes useful, sometimes irrelevant, and sometimes harmful.
I can think of three useful types of label, and one label type that is harmful. And yet, the harmful labels are getting all the attention!
And it’s not because I’m a slow reader. I plowed through Brandon Sanderson’s 1100-page brick The Way of Kings in less than a day. So why, then, did this particular book take me so long?
Well, before I tell you, let me frame the context.
It’s a book that’s getting a lot of traction amongst animal trainers lately, specifically amongst the behaviour analytic crowd.
The book is called How Emotions Are Made, and it’s by Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of Psychology and a neuroscientist. In the book she makes a big, and in many peoples’ eyes, compelling, case of emotions being constructed rather than innate. So, many behaviour analysts love the book, and I feel like a complete dissenter in that crowd, because while they’re all nodding in agreement, I shake my head thinking that some of the main conclusions in the book are seriously flawed.
Swimming against the behaviour analytical crowd
We’ll get to my objections in a minute, but let’s start with: what is the central idea behind the Constructed Theory of Emotions?
In this post, I’m sharing a chapter from my extensive online course Getting Behaviour! The video below is one of the 108 similar chapters from the course.
The video discusses why training sessions should be shorter rather than longer, and why training more than once a day may in some cases actually hurt your training; sleep consolidates memory, so a second same-day training session may interfere with the consolidation of the first training session.
