Dog training tip o' the day: No-reward markers

Today I want to talk about no-reward makers (aka NRMs).

In some circles, mentioning NRMs can elicit boos and hisses. This is because a NRM is technically a positive punisher. That is, it is actively applied in order to reduce the likelihood of a behaviour happening again. Many people are leery of punishment in dog training, and with good reason. So the use of NRMs is often discouraged.

But, I kind of like NRMs in certain situations.

A no-reward marker is intended to be a way to communicate to the dog that the thing they are doing at the moment is not going to earn them a reward. It's sort of the opposite of a clicker. Using NRMs comes naturally to people -- most of us say no, nope, or try again if our dogs make a mistake during a training session. It is a way to offer a bit more information to a dog if they begin to go down an undesired path during a training session.

In a perfect world, NRMs shouldn't be necessary. A dog should be set up to offer the desired behaviour during training from the very beginning through management and a conscientious approach to the session. In a perfect world, dogs should be crystal clear in what it is you are asking of them. However, I am not a perfect trainer.

I occasionally rush progression, or stall too long on a step, or just get lazy and let my criteria slide. My dog might begin to offer undesired behaviours that run the risk of being reinforced by subsequent steps within a behaviour chain before I've had a chance to address them. When that happens, mistakes can become entrenched within a chain and can be difficult to remove once there. If I remain silent and withhold a click, my dog may grow frustrated at not being offered a clear picture of what it is I'm looking for. She might grumble, stress up or grow frenzied in her responses if I remain silent. If I let her know that she is offering something that I am not looking for and that will not be rewarded, she can gain some clarity and try something else.

As the trainer, it's me who shoulders the responsibility for this lack of clarity. If I found myself having to rely a great deal on NRMs, it would be in my best interest to step back and assess where I'm going wrong in my approach. However, as the occasional stopgap measure, I find them useful.

In brief, NRMs:

... Should not intimidate or demotivate a dog. Some dogs will wilt if they are used. For these dogs, they are the wrong tool for the job.

... Should not be used to stop unwanted and/or nuisance behaviours.

... Should be cheerful & motivational or neutral. They should be free from disapproval.

... Should prompt the dog to stop what it is they are doing and check in with you.

... Should be used sparingly at best, and avoided if possible. Relying on them in every training session is unnecessary.

... Should be avoided when you are teaching a new behaviour. Errorless learning is the better choice. You want your dog to understand what is right well before you focus on what is wrong.

... Are best suited to polishing behaviour chains wherein a mistake earlier in the chain runs the risk of being reinforced by subsequent steps in the chain.

So, that's my spiel on NRMs. What do you think? When do you use them? Have you changed in your approach to NRMs over time? Have you ever put much thought into how you use them? Let me know in the comments.

Happy clicking!

Dog training tip o' the day: Stimulus Control

Dog training tip o' the day: Do you have a dog that starts throwing every trick he knows at you when training time starts? Are you trying to isolate a single desired behaviour out of an assortment of offered ones? Time to work on stimulus control!

Stimulus control: 
(from http://www.clickertraining.com/glossary/17#term21269)
"A conditioned stimulus becomes a discriminative stimulus (or cue) when it is followed by a specific learned behavior or reaction. The response is said to be 'under stimulus control' when presentation of the particular stimulus fulfills these four conditions: the behavior is always offered when that cue is presented; the behavior is not offered in the absence of that cue; the behavior is not offered in response to some other cue; and no other behavior occurs in response to that cue."

When we teach a dog something new, the first thing we look to do is get the behaviour. Once we have the behaviour, we add the cue. Next, we polish the behaviour and fine tune it -- you can also add a new cue to this improved behaviour at this point, if desired. Then, you need to get this new behaviour under stimulus control.

Since stimulus control comes later in the learning process, it's often something that novice trainers forget about or choose to bypass because they're pleased with the behaviour as it exists already. But if it's ignored or only completed part way, you can end up with one of those dogs that throws everything they know at you, ad infinitum, as you reach for the cookie jar. Sound familiar? Some people find enjoyment in their dogs doing this and will reinforce this "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach. If you do, that's fine! However, you may never end up with clean behaviours, or with a dog who eagerly waits to hear what you have to say.

To get a behaviour on stimulus control requires that you go back to the teaching process. Pick one or more simple behaviours and methodically establish the criteria for each cue. This means:

- you want your pup to sit when you say sit
- you don't want your pup to sit when you say something else
- you don't want your pup to sit when you say nothing
- you don't want your pup to do something else when you say sit

Only reward if your dog is performing the desired behaviour when you use your desired cue. If they do something else, whoops, no reward this time, nice try buddy! Try again! If your pup is making mistakes multiples times in a row, or more than 10-20% of the time, the exercise is likely to hard. Try to make it a bit easier on them. Keep these proofing sessions very short and spaced a few hours apart, at least.

You can have fun during this process. You can also take it to new heights by alternating what you're doing when you offer your verbal cue. Spin or hide out of sight or whisper or sit on a couch or work in a new environment to change up the picture for your dog and to further cement the "sit means sit" association in your dog's head. Once your dog has a handful of actions under good stimulus control, he & you should have a significantly easier times going forward in training because he understands that specific behaviours are linked to specific cues and only cued behaviours are rewarded.

Problems with stimulus control are often seen as problems with over-arousal during training sessions. Stay tuned for my next Dog Training Tip O' The Day for some more ideas on how to address over-arousal.

-----

This was something that was asked as part of my recent call for submissions for dog training tips. Thank you to everyone who asked about it. If you have a question of your own, feel free to submit it here, on this page or via private message. Happy clicking!

Dog training tip o' the day: Good advice on good training takes a while to take effect.

Dog training tip o' the day: Good advice on good training takes a while to take effect. Don't dismiss a method or methodology after failure to prompt change in the short term. 

It takes time for behaviour to change, especially when first the behaviour of the handler needs to change to create change in the dog. I know from personal experience that it's easy to grow discouraged and possibly suspect that the advice received is incorrect for your personal set of circumstances. However, before deciding to move on from a strategy, make sure to give it a fair try first.

I remember years ago when still very much a novice trainer and Cohen still a young dog that I was having trouble with reduction in the quality of attention and leash behaviour immediately after rewarding Cohen for good behaviour. I turned to some acquaintances to help troubleshoot the issue and one of the pieces of advice offered was to offer a series of rewards in quick succession at random intervals to encourage sustained attention. I tried it for a week or two, didn't see much improvement and shelved working on it for a while after growing discouraged and demotivated. Now, well, I have great sustained attention, and I owe it largely to that advice. It just took a while for the picture to become clear. If anyone would ask me for advice on the issue the words I would offer would mirror those that I received years ago with the added caveat of "don't give up!".

The memory of demotivation and "well maybe it's just not going to work for us" is still clear in my mind. For those of you who ever feel similarly, time and consistency are often the two missing ingredients to creating change. Keep at it, and try not to be discouraged.

#dttotd

Dog training tip o' the day: "How long should I use treats for reinforcement?"

Dog training tip o' the day: "How long should I use treats for reinforcement?"

This is a question that gets asked a lot when training dogs. Obviously you don't want to ever have to be reliant on treats whenever you need to ask your dog to do something. Many a trainer has weighed in on how best to ensure your dog's behaviour be reliable regardless of whether you have a pocketful of chicken or not. I feel like there's another question underneath the first, which is,

"How long should I be reinforcing to my dog?"

People use treats for dog training because they are a primary reinforcer, that is, they are intrinsically valuable to a dog. They all need to eat, and most enjoy eating a great deal. But food is not the only reinforcer available to you -- there's play, praise, access to the environment and more. I almost always start training with food due to its intrinsic strength, but if food was the only reinforcer available in a trainer's arsenal then the trainer would find themselves very limited indeed.

The way I look at training is that you use a high degree of reinforcement to lay the groundwork for behaviours, ideally so much so that they become ingrained in a dog's behaviour patterns. For instance, when I ask Cohen to sit she complies almost instantly, and almost subconsciously -- we have done so many drills that compliance is almost guaranteed. Once that initial groundwork is laid then I'm granted more variety in the way which I choose to approach reinforcement, but I will Always. Reinforce. My Dog.

There is a constant mathematical formula running in my head evaluating where my dog is being reinforced and by how much. (Remember, behaviour that is reinforced is more likely to be repeated.) Is going after that scrap of garbage more rewarding than listening to me? What about running after that squirrel? What about that small child smeared with ice cream? The jogger? The puppy? These mental calculations may sound like a lot of work, but they're easier than they seem, especially with practice. Then I choose the appropriate type of reward for the situation.

This is where training and having a good relationship with your dog really shines. Training is the ultimate bonding experience. It teaches both you and your dog to communicate with one another and strengthens that special relationship that exists between a person and their four-legged best friend.

As you spend more quality time with your dog you become intrinsically rewarding to them. Your dog will look to you for guidance and feedback because that is the pattern you've created over the months and years of hard work. If your pup is anything like Cohen, she will enjoy spending time with you and earning your attention because listening to you is both entertaining and fun. And if your pup is not like mine yet you can certainly create this type of relationship if you're dedicated to building it.

This to me is the true payoff for training. All that time spent running drills for off-leash recalls and heeling eventually pay off by teaching both you and your dog how to listen to each other, and more importantly enjoy doing so. My presence is rewarding to my dog just the same way her presence is rewarding to me.

So, let's again look at the question, "How long should I be reinforcing for my dog?" By now I'm sure it's obvious what my answer is. You should plan to always be reinforcing to your dog.

When you first get your unruly puppy it might be tough to win out over all the distractions of the world without waving a piece of tripe in front of your dog's nose. You'll find yourself frustrated and wondering if you'll have to rely on these methods forever. But through being consistent and building up a relationship with your dog (ideally one free of intimidation and physical punishment) you'll find that less and less you'll have to struggle to keep your dog's attention. It's a beautiful day when you realize that your dog is voluntarily giving you her attention because she wants to and enjoys doing so. Building this reaction is a lifelong process and is probably the most worthwhile pursuit in building a relationship with your dog.

Of course, everyone enjoys the occasionally cookie too.

Dog training tip o' the day: Punishment will shut down behaviour but it may not address the underlying cause.

Dog training tip o' the day: Punishment will shut down behaviour but it may not address the underlying cause. 

Imagine you have a pot of water on the stove. The heat is turned on beneath it and gradually the water begins to boil. Then the water begins to boil over. "No problem," you say, "I'll solve the problem of the overflowing water by putting a lid on the pot!" The lid solves the immediate problem of water spilling out of the pot. However the heat underneath is still on and the water continues to boil. You just can't see it. Eventually the water boils over again, more strongly this time. The lid rattles, hot water pours out and you have a mess on your hands from a problem that you thought you'd previously fixed. Turns out you only masked your problem temporarily.

Now, to apply this to dogs, imagine you're walking your pup down the street and she sees another dog approaching. She barks, growls and lunges. You're displeased with this behaviour and don't want it to happen again (so embarrassing!) so you punish your dog by jerking the leash and telling her to knock it off to stop the behaviour. This may get her to snap out of her threat display, but it doesn't address the underlying issue. It doesn't turn the heat off under the pot, it just puts a lid on it. Your dog is likely still anxious (and may in fact be more anxious now since the leash correction and reprimand was pretty unpleasant too). That anxiety is the heat below the pot which is causing the explosive behaviour. 

I was reading up on a few people's impressions of a recent Denise Fenzi seminar, and one thing has struck me. From what I gather from various posts, one of her take-home messages is:

silence = good

What I gather she means is that if you have a dog with whom you wish to compete in obedience you want to not have to rely on a string of reinforcement to keep the dog confident and motivated. I know I'm very prone to useless chatter when I'm pleased with my dog's performance. I've also been educated to believe that a correct behaviour should be marked and an incorrect one ignored - the dog should be able to figure out their response was incorrect from the lack of reinforcement.

The way I've interpreted what I've read is that silence, simply enough, means that the dog is doing well, and to continue. If a dog should make a mistake, it is then that a timely correction is offered.

Now, this makes sense to me on some level, but on another level it kind of throws a wrench into the whole positive reinforcement mantra that I hear repeated time and time again by my favourite trainers. It also makes me stop to ponder that:

if silence = good does voice = bad? 

With everything in life, I'm sure it's not such a black and white issue. However I'm curious where in the grey zone Denise Fenzi and other successful R+ish obedience competitors lay.

I think it's pertinent to be mindful of the discipline you're currently competing in. I feel strongly that agility should always be a positive experience where the dog is never wrong. I also feel strongly that a good family pet can be more than adequately trained through positive* means. Though when it comes to top tier competitive obedience I wonder when and where corrections might be necessary.** 

As always I suspect the answer is:

 it depends

I'm squeamish to think that any degree of negativity should be intentionally injected into a dog and handler's relationship.I know that even now I'm still paying for some foolish knee-jerk reactions I had when Cohen was being a no-good puppy. I don't feel comfortable thinking it justified to place undue stress on a dog in a situation that is innately stressful (stress is intrinsic to the learning process). But on the flip side, I do correct a forge during LLW with a happy-sounding "whoops" to great effect.

As of now I'm positively delighted at Cohen's behaviour. She and I are really meshing into a cohesive team, and I don't particularly plan on changing my approach. However, these types of refreshing variations in approach always make for some interesting food for thought.


* Positive means, in this context, refers to positive reinforcement.
** Necessary corrections might be things like a non-reward marker or a playful tap - not anything unnecessarily stressful or harsh.

One week in...

Today marks the completion of the first week of the Recall e-course I'm participating in, and already I'm noticing some nice improvements, and general frustration outside has diminished greatly.

Some highlights of general improvement:

• Yesterday in agility class I had Cohen sitting in her crate with the door open while I went across the room to listen to my instructor. Cohen sat there calmly without breaking the barrier while another dog was played with right in front of her and I was over 40 feet away.
• One of the dogs in last night's class was reactive and generally a handful. She was barking, chasing, and got away from her handler once to chase after another dog on the course. All the while Cohen sat quietly in her crate looking to me for reinforcement.
• Cohen recalled away from a half-eaten banana in the park.
• Cohen recalled away from a game of chase after it had died down a bit when I was over 100ft away.
• Cohen stopped her stalking of a nearby squirrel with a "leave it" from me.

On top of all that, there's just a general sense of ease and enthusiasm when we're out together. I've been making more effort to play with her and work the games into our walks. I've been mindful of where Cohen's reinforcement is coming from and I think I'm getting better at managing it.

I walk Cohen off-leash constantly (as long as we're away from roads). I think I'm probably not following the rules in this situation. I think the idea is for her to be leashed so as not to allow for any opportunities to inappropriately reinforce herself while we're out, but at this point I don't think that that's a realistic expectation. Instead I've been working on being more preemptive and rewarding like crazy when Cohen makes a good decision without any cue from me.

I look forward to where we'll be when the course reaches its end.

Common recall mistakes

This is a list of common recall mistakes. In an attempt to begin diagnosing my problems with recall I've marked some that I seem to have particular problem with.

Cohen is a good dog, and I would say 80% reliable off-leash. My standards for behaviour are very high and I try as hard as I can to strive for perfection. The issues I run into time and time again are a) getting too pushy during play, intimidating other dogs and not recalling, and b) finding something vaguely edible on the ground and, again, not recalling.

So without further ado, the list.

1. Weak history of reinforcement associated with you.
2. A strong history of reinforcement from the environment. (Very guilty of this!)
3. Reinforcement value of having an owner chase the dog that doesn't come.
4. History of recall equating to a loss. (Guilty of trying to call Cohen off when she gets too involved in rough play.)
5. History of being "tricked" into coming when he doesn't want to.
6. Dependency on confinement, tethering or a long line.
7. History of punishing the dog upon return.
8. Lack of opportunity for freedom to run and explore.
9. Lack of exercise.
10. The "poisoned" recall cue.
11. Too much freedom too early in life and a lack of awareness from you where the balance lies. (Again, this might be an issue for me. Cohen has always been allowed off leash since she first arrived home. It's a minor issue, if anything.)
12. A history of positive consequences when the dog chooses not to come when called. (This ties into my other issues.)

Poor strategic use of reinforcement -- lack of time or knowledge. For me, I fear it's lack of knowledge. Hopefully this will be rectified during the course. I fear I reward too often for mediocre behaviour, and use too low-value reinforcers. I use kibble often since Cohen will work for it 95% of the time.

Lately I've been wondering if I use food rewards too habitually, and the constant expectation for reward lessens their impact overall.

The most important thing to remember is to "be the cookie" as in, make yourself intrinsically valuable to your dog.

Sorry for the jumbled nature of this post -- it's more to serve as a reminder to myself than to educate those having trouble with their own recalls.

Being reinforcing to your dog

Someone recently asked me,

"How long should I use treats for reinforcement?"

This is a question that gets asked a lot when training dogs. Obviously you don't want to ever have to be reliant on treats whenever you need to ask your dog to do something. Many a positive trainer has weighed in on how best to ensure your dog's behaviour be reliable regardless of whether you have a pocketful of chicken or not. I feel like there's another question underneath the first, which is,

"How long should I be reinforcing to my dog?"

People use treats for dog training because they are a primary reinforcer, that is, they are intrinsically valuable to a dog. They all need to eat, and most enjoy eating a great deal. But food is not the only reinforcer available to you -- there's play, praise, access to the environment and more. I almost always start training with food due to its intrinsic strength, but if food was the only reinforcer available in a trainer's arsenal then the trainer would find themselves very limited indeed.

The way I look at training is that you use a high level of reinforcement to lay the groundwork for behaviours, ideally so much so that they become ingrained in a dog's behavioural patterns. For instance, when I ask my girl to sit she complies almost instantly, and almost subconsciously -- we have done so many drills that compliance is almost guaranteed. Once that initial groundwork is laid then I'm granted more variety in the way which I choose to approach reinforcement, but I will always. reinforce. my dog.

There is a constant mathematical formula running in my head evaluating where my dog is being reinforced and by how much. (Remember, behaviour that is reinforced is more likely to be repeated.) Is going after that scrap of garbage more rewarding than listening to me? What about running after that squirrel? What about that small child smeared with icecream? The jogger? The puppy? These mental calculations may sound like a lot of work, but they're easier than they seem, especially with practice.

This is where training and having a good relationship with your dog really shines. Training is the ultimate bonding experience. It teaches both you and your dog to communicate with one another and strengthens that special relationship that exists between a person and their four-legged best friend.

As you spend more quality time with your dog you become intrinsically rewarding to them. Your dog will look to you for guidance and feedback because that is the pattern you've created over the months and years of hard work. If your pup is anything like mine, it will enjoy spending time with you and earning your attention because listening to you is both entertaining and fun. And if your pup is not like mine yet you can certainly create this type of relationship if you're dedicated to building it.

This to me is the true payoff for training. All those long hours spent running drills for off-leash recalls and heeling eventually pay off by teaching both you and your dog how to listen to each other, and more importantly, enjoy doing so. My presence is rewarding to my dog, just the same way her presence is rewarding to me.

So, let's again look at the question, "How long should I be reinforcing for my dog?" By now I'm sure it's obvious what my answer is. You should plan to always be reinforcing to your dog.

When you first get your unruly puppy it might be tough to win out over all the distractions of the world without waving a piece of tripe in front of your dog's nose. You'll find yourself frustrated and wondering if you'll have to rely on these methods forever. But through being consistent and building up a positive relationship with your dog (one free of intimidation and physical punishment) you'll find that less and less you'll have to struggle to keep your dog's attention. It's a beautiful day when you realize that your dog is voluntarily giving you its attention because it wants to, and enjoys doing so. Building this reaction is a lifelong process, and is probably the most worthwhile pursuit in building a relationship with your dog.

Of course, everyone enjoys the occasionally cookie too.

An introduction to dog training, pt 1

An introduction to dog training ends up sounding a lot like an introduction to psychology. Because it is. If you want to teach your dog anything it would be helpful to look into how animals (ourselves included) learn.

I'm going to use these first few posts to lay out a lot of the basic language that I think is important to understand when talking about training.

Classical conditioning

Pavlov's dog: By this point in your life you probably have at least a passing familiarity with Pavlov and his dogs. He was a physiologist who noticed that his experiment subjects would occasionally drool when no food was present – for instance, when the assistant who normally fed them walked into the room, even if he wasn't carrying food at the time. Pavlov designed an experiment that looked into the root of the dogs' responses. In phase one he would measure the dog's salivation under two situations: when meat powder was placed on the dog's tongue, when a neutral stimulus was presented (a tone, which on its own would cause no salivation). In phase two he would sound the tone and then present the meat powder several times. In phase three he would sound the tone with no food present and, whelp, the dogs still salivated. They had learned that the sound of the tone indicated the imminent arrival of food.

Unconditioned stimulus (meat powder) -> Unconditioned Response (salivation)

The process of conditioning:

Neutral stimulus (tone) -> Unconditioned stimulus (meat powder) -> Unconditioned Response (salivation)

After conditioning has occurred:

Conditioned stimulus (tone) -> Conditioned response (salivation)

This is an important idea to understand about the learning process. The physical response is involuntary, but still occurs despite being protracted from the original trigger.

This reaction can be stretched a bit by, say, pairing a flashing light with the sound of the tone, which was previously paired with the arrival of meat so the flashing light eventually increases salivation response, but the response is weaker. This is called second-order conditioning. You can normally further protract the process another few times, but you must understand that it's less effective each time.

The coolest thing about conditioning, and what's most important to remember, is that the learning process happens subconsciously. It is a natural reaction of animals' brains, and it can be used to explain the occurrence of various phobias, etc.

So how does this apply to dog training?

Say you're out walking your dog and it sees another dog approaching in the distance and starts barking at them and generally being an asshole. This sort of antisocial behaviour is normally born out of insecurity, and the dog has learned that if it barks and is unapproachable the other dog won't approach. The dog has been conditioned to feel that other dogs' presences are unpleasant and reacts accordingly. To bring this back to Pavlov, the approach of the other dog is the conditioned stimulus, and the barking is the conditioned response.

So, well, your dog has already been conditioned to think that other dogs mean bad things. What now? Now it's time for counter-conditioning. Your goal is to change the approach of other dogs from an indicator of negative things into an indicator of positive things. You do this with food, 'cause, well, dogs love food (and they need it to live).

First you need to figure out what your dog's reaction distance is. Is it when the other dog gets within 10 feet of it, or when your dog sees another dog 6 blocks away? The reaction distance is your dogs' threshold between being chill and freaking out. You want to keep the dog under threshold at all times if possible (but admittedly, this is not always possible). So, keep your distance from other dogs while you're doing this. Don't push your dog too hard.

Second, once you see that other dog approaching your dog's threshold start popping food into its mouth, one piece immediately after another. If your dog won't take food you're too close to the other dog and you need to move away. Use awesome treats for this if your dog is really disinterested in taking food – steak, pizza, hotdogs, peanut butter, etc. Essentially your goal is to repeat this enough that your dog starts looking at you expecting food when it sees another dog. And your job is to provide food every single time.

Important things to remember: Your dog should notice the other dog before he gets food, so he understands more quickly that other dogs = incoming food. Counter-conditioning takes a LOT of time, so expect to spend months working on this. Progress might seem slow, and there are occasional set backs, but keep at it.

This is an excellent video demonstration of how successful basic counterconditioning can be:

Video Link: Counterconditioning a dog who acts aggressively when blown on

Desensitization

Systematic desensitization is often coupled with counter-conditioning. It's used by psychologists to treat people with anxieties or phobias. The subject is exposed to a fear-evoking object or situation at an intensity that does not produce a response. Intensity can be modified via the degree of realism, proximity, etc. Intensity is gradually increased contingent on the subject continuing to feel okay.

Extinction

In general, a conditioned response will gradually disappear if not reinforced through the process of extinction. For instance, if Pavlov stopped offering meat powder after sounding the tone for a period of time, the dogs will cease to salivate since the association between the tone and the food is no longer being reinforced. This is why ignored behaviours often stop since the dog is no longer being reinforced for providing them.

However, some behaviours are self-reinforcing, and therefore very difficult to extinguish. For example, a dog often finds barking to be a pleasurable response to various stimuli (barking is FUN!) so even if you ignore a barking dog they're very unlikely to stop this behaviour since they're reinforcing it themselves. That's not to say that you can't train a barking dog to be less barky, but it requires a different approach than to ignore it.

Operant conditioning

Operant conditioning accounts for most of what we learn every day.

In classical conditioning, the neutral stimulus and unconditioned response are predictably paired, and the result is an association between the two. (Then the conditioned stimulus triggers the conditioned response.) Stimuli occur before or along with the conditioned response. But dogs (and humans) also learn many associations between responses and stimuli that follow them – between a behaviour and its consequences.

Operant conditioning is all about consequences, whether they're good or bad. Learning is governed by the law of effect which states that if an action is followed by a satisfying effect the action is more likely to be repeated the next time the stimulus is present, and if an action is followed by an unsatisfying effect it is less likely to be repeated. The subject learns by operating on the environment, hence the term operant conditioning.

In classical conditioning the conditioned response does not affect whether or when the stimulus occurs. Pavlov's dogs salivated when the buzzer sounded, but the salivation had no effect on the buzzer or on whether food was presented. To contrast, an operant has some effect on the world. A child says “I'm hungry” and then is fed, the child has made an operant response that influences when food will appear. If a dog sits and then is fed, the dog has made an operant response that has also influenced when food will appear.

Reinforcement and punishment

There are four quadrants of consequences that follow a response in operant conditioning. They are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment. A reinforcer increases the likelihood of a behaviour happening again, and a punishment decreases the likelihood of a behaviour happening again. The term “positive” means you're adding something to the environment, “negative” means that you're taking something away from the environment. To clarify:

Positive reinforcement (R+): So, based on the definitions I just gave, a positive reinforcer is something you provide to the dog that will increase the likelihood of a behaviour repeating itself. Example: a treat following a dog sitting after you ask it to sit.

Negative reinforcement (R-): A negative reinforcer is when you take something away from the environment to increase the likelihood of a behaviour repeating itself. Example: upwards tension on a leash is released once a dog has sat after being asked to sit.

Positive punishment (P+): Positive punishment is adding something to the environment to decrease the likelihood of a behaviour repeating. Example: When you reprimand a dog for jumping up on visitors.

Negative punishment (P-): Negative punishment is when you remove something from the environment to decrease the likelihood of a behaviour repeating. Example: Putting a dog on “time out” after jumping up on visitors.

I like to focus primarily on R+/P- quadrants. I like to reward good behaviour and ignore bad behaviour. If bad behaviour is ignored (and not self reinforced) then its occurrence will decrease. (See the Extinction section for more information.)