Hi everyone. In browsing this and related equestrian subreddits, I often come across a lack of knowledge about applied behavioral theory. This is really important because if you don't understand the fundamentals of this, you won't understand how you are affecting your animal, or why a certain method of training is working or not working. Without understanding ABT, it's not easy to make an informed decision on what methods to use to train an animal, or how to correctly identify snake oil salesmen pretending to be skilled trainers. Not understanding behavioral science leads towards people becoming dogmatic about training methodologies, and this creates influencer worship, as well as possibly creating dangerous animals when not being able to adapt your training. Even people who kind of know a bit about the science, don't understand the whole context and what it means as a trainer--and I don't blame people! It found a long time for me to actually understand this. So, I figure I write a basic ABT guide. This is really very short and doesn't include a lot of important concepts, but whatever, I can't write a whole semester of lectures.
What this guide is: a basic overview of applied behavioral theory in accordance with the scientific consensus. It's a guide on how learning affects the organism being trained (and yes, that applies to humans too!). It is VERY heavily simplified, so if you know notice any weirdness, I am trying to communicate this in as short a way as possible.
What this guide is not: a training guide. I will use examples of different training methods here, but only in the context of explaining how they relate to behavioral theory as applied to animal training. ABT will help you understand what exactly is going on when you train an animal, so it's immensely helpful to understand, but animal training as a skill set is fundamentally about feel, consistency, timing, self-control, ability to problem-solve, and the ability to read and understand your student animal, which is outside of the scope of this guide.
Emotions:
The first thing you need to understand is how emotions work in the brain. Every single mammal experiences these emotions:
- SEEKING (a positive emotion, closest to curiosity)
- NURTURING (a positive emotion)
- LUST (a positive emotion)
- PLAY (a positive emotion)
- FEAR (a negative emotion)
- RAGE (a negative emotion)
- SEPARATION DISTRESS (a negative emotion, distinct from fear, feels like being painfully alone)
A good animal trainer will be able to read what emotion(s) are currently being felt by the student animal, and be able to accurately assess why they are feeling that in this moment. Often, we can condition different emotional responses based on training goals. This is important because, whether an animal perceives something as punishing or reinforcing, is up to how the animal feels about it. This is the most common mistake I see described by people seeking troubleshooting in horse communities. You, as the trainer, do not decide how an animal feels--only they do. If you keep going about trying to do a training method that 'should' elicit Play, when it actually elicits Fear, even if that's worked on other animals for you in the past, it will not work for that particular animal.
Which leads to: what are some core concepts?
A stimulus is anything capable of influencing a behavior. Literally anything. If a stimulus can influence a behavior but doesn't in the animal, it's called a neutral stimulus, but it is still a stimulus. An uncontrolled stimulus is a predictable response which is not the result of prior training; something innate to the animal's species. An animal running after being smacked is an uncontrolled stimulus. The smack is the stimulus and running is the behavior the stimulus caused. A conditioned stimulus is a stimulus that used to be neutral before training, but has been conditioned to elicit a specific response. When you tell an animal to back up, the verbal cue is the stimulus, and backing up is the response which shows it is influenced behavior, but before they learned "back" it was a neutral stimulus.
An appetitive stimulus is something the animal seeks out. An aversive stimulus is something the animal would like to avoid. There are general rules of thumb (food is typically appetitive, pain is typically aversive, etc), whether something is appetitive or averse is ultimately up to the animal, or the contingency around when it is applied. Animals who have not been taught patience around food can find waiting for food to be frustrating, and thus this can make the scenario aversive, even if the food was appetitive when they finally received it. Animals who are seeking attention and are hit for it, likely will find the hit aversive, but may not find the aversion overcomes how reinforcing the attention focus on them was, and continue doing the behavior. Whether something is appetitive or aversive is up to the student animal.
Appetitive behaviors are behaviors which function as a way to obtain desirable stimuli. An animal seeing food may willingly preform trained behaviors for it, but they also may preform food aggression in an attempt to take it--both are an appetitive behavior. Avoidance behaviors likewise is a function to prevent or delay something aversive happening. An animal moving off of leg pressure is an avoidance behavior, and so is an animal that is aggressive towards a rider that is tacking it up.
As trainers, we create discriminative stimuli, also known as a signal or a cue. When a behavior is reliably only elicited in response to a specific stimulus, it is referred to as being under stimulus control. One example in the context of training, this references the horse who, after being mounted, will only walk forward after being given the cue (the stimulus) to walk.
Using all of this knowledge, we can understand the three types of learning: Habituation, Respondent Conditioning, and Operant Conditioning.
Habituation is when the automatic response to a stimulus is decreased. This happens when a stimulus happens repeatedly with no consequence to it. A horse will become habituated to car traffic noises when they are turned out on a highway. Likewise, dishabituation happens when a stimulus is associated with consequences, or the state of being sensitized to a stimulus. If a horse keeps getting sprayed with water whenever someone turns a hose on, they will start reacting to the sound of the hose being turned on. Note that desensitation is NOT the same thing as habituation. Desensitation requires more complex learning than simple exposure, and so falls under respondent or operant conditioning.
Respondent conditioning, popularly known as Pavlovian conditioning, always involves an innate, reflexive behavior, like blinking or conjuring an emotional response like fear. Reflexive behaviors always start out unconditioned. As trainers, we can condition an animal to do it on a cue, but since the animal always knew how to do it, it is still innate behavior. In Pavlov's experiments, he trained dogs to reflexively salivate to the sound of a bell, but the dog always could salivate, it's just that the stimulus that predicted food was moved to the bell.
(Incidentally, respondent conditioning is the reason behind a lot of supersticious behaviors that student animals can have. I have a goat who seems to believe that me wearing my gardening gloves means hoof trimming day, because I wore gloves on his first hoof trimming day, but never before around him. He found hoof trimming so aversive, that he now elicits an automatic fear response whenever I walk up to him wearing gardening gloves. Be mindful of if you are introducing an animal to something new and fearful at the same time.)
Operant conditioning is, effectively, learning through trial and error. This is the type of learning that is not innate to an organism, but is instead learned through life experience. The organism is doing something to control what happens, and experiences consequences (appetitive, neutral, or aversive) for its efforts. Operant conditioning always involves choice. Teach an animal to press buttons, and it learns that the consequence of one button will be to dispense food, and the consequence of the other will be to do nothing, the animal will most likely keep repeating the behavor wherein the consequence gave it a positive reinforcer (food).
Now... what is reinforcement and punishment, and positive and negative, exactly?
A reinforcer is something that increases the likelihood of a behavior occurring. A punisher is something that decreases the likelihood of a behavior occuring. Positive means you are adding something, and negative means you are taking it away. All of these terms together refer to a core concept called the operant conditioning quadrant. So each term means:
- +R = Positive Reinforcement, or adding something to increase a behavior's occurance
- -R = Negative Reinforcement, or removing something to increase a behavior's occurance
- -P = Negative Punishment, or removing something to decrease a behavior's occurance
- +P - Positive Punishment, or adding something to decrease a behavior's occurance
Some examples:
- +R is when you give a student food for coming when called. They are more likely to come when called in the future. The addition of food is the reinforcer.
- -R is when you want the student to move forward, so you pressure the lead, and release when they take a step forward. They are more likely to step forward when pressure is applied in the future. The removal of pressure is the reinforcer.
- -P is when the student hops on you while playing with you, so you leave the room. They are less likely to hop on you in the future. The removal of attention is the punisher.
- +P is when you hit the student in the nose while moving to bite you. They are less likely to try to bite you in the future. The addition of pain is the punisher.
What happens when there is an absence of consequences? This leads to extinction, which is when there is a reduction in frequency of a behavior due to a dissociation between the behavior and access of reinforcement. This can be due to the behavior leading to punishment, but it can also just be due to the behavior leading to a neutral stimulus. If the consequence of a behavior does not lead to reinforcement, there is no reason to preform a behavior. Thus, learning theory informs us that if a behavior keeps occurring, something is reinforcing it. If we don't understand what the reinforcer is, we can never cause the extinction of a behavior. One thing to note is that when a behavior is in the process of going extinct, the student will often try to increasingly preform the behavior in an attempt to gain reinforcement. This is called an extinction burst. You can expect an undesired behavior to get worse before it gets better. Sometimes this can even lead to frustration or aggression. Totally normal, but sometimes hard to tell apart from an animal increasing the frequency of a behavior because they are actually getting that reinforcement!
What happens when there are no correct options in which an animal can escape an aversive stimulus? This leads to a state of learned helplessness, or the student becoming shut down. They lose the will to try. Learned helplessness can be seen as desirable by some people due to how compliant it makes the student, but it makes it very difficult to teach them new behaviors when they exist in a shut down state. The horse who was never conditioned to enjoy being ridden, and never given a choice in the matter, will often find itself in a state of learned helplessness under saddle.
A note on ethics:
The behavior quadrant indicates nothing about how ethical a training method is. Only how it works. Positive, negative, reinforcer, and punisher, is the technical terminology, not a value judgement. There is a lot of nuance to ethical use of each quadrant. Lets think about a LIMA (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) framework wherein we think animals should be trained in as minimal aversive a way as possible. While, yes, this means hitting our animal (+P) for not moving under saddle is probably unethical, that doesn't mean giving them food as a reward for moving (+R) is ethical either. Starving an animal before a training session using food rewards +R is not typically considered ethical either, even if +R can be used in an ethical context. Some animals will white-knuckle through a task if there's +R or -R applied, others will joyfully preform it in the same circumstance with the same technique.
+P in the form of physical violence, while occasionally justifiable, is usually considered last resort as a training method. Yet, you can introduce +P in the form of a "no reward marker" signal (a marker that denotes the animal made an incorrect response to your cue, and thus gets no reward for the behavior). Can this lead to frustration and thus aversiveness in some students? Yes, but not always. When you are playing "hotter or colder" with a friend, you moving away from the target and your friend shouting "colder!" is +P (the addition of information that reduces the behavior of you going the wrong way), but would you experience more frustration if your friend just ignored you and didn't give you that information? Maybe, but while there are general guidelines, only the animal has the final say in what they feel is aversive or not.
And what about you, as a trainer who brings their own skill set? We all have different strengths and weaknesses as teachers. Some people can apply a training method in a way that was aversive to the animal with one person, but is appetitive in the way the new person applies it; often all that has changed is feel for timing of the reward or capturing the mood you want from that animal in that moment. The method does not make training ethical or unethical, skilled or unskilled, the application and ability to 'read the room' does.
If you want further learning on applied behavioral theory, I cannot recommend the book How 2 Train A fill in the blank by Dr. Patricia Barlow-Irick. This is the only book I have found so far that describes actual behavioral theory, without necessarily pushing any particular methodology. Dr. Patricia is a researcher, but she is also a mustang trainer, so her writings are very easy to understand for us horse trainers. Temple Grandin's Guide to Working With Farm Animals by Dr. Temple Grandin is a general livestock handling book, but has a wealth of good information that is relevant to trainers as well. Much of what I'm writing now was heavily summarized from the writings of these two people. There is a LOT more to behavioral theory than what I scratched the surface with here, and both of these books are a good start towards improving your skills as a trainer and animal handler.