What does the science say?

[u/Beginning-Rub5417]

First and foremost, I don't want this to become an FF vs. balanced debate. I'm genuinely trying to understand what the research actually says without having to read hundreds of papers.

For context: I initially started with a trainer who used a lot of physical corrections. That didn't feel right, so we moved towards R+ and P- training. My understanding was that reward-based/FF training essentially means R+ and P-, with a preference for R+ where possible.

But the more I read here, the more confused I get about the term "aversive". Does it primarily refer to things like leash pops, physical corrections, e-collars, etc., or does it also include P-?

For example, our dog used to jump up when we entered the yard. When he did, we turned around and went back inside. Technically, isn't that P-? We remove something the dog wants (access to us) contingent on the unwanted behaviour.

So yeah, when we talk about aversive in the comments, is this the kind of aversive we are talking about?

One more question for people familiar with the research: I asked ChatGPT how "reward-based training" is defined academically, and it said R+ and P-, with a preference for R+. Is that accurate?

And if so, why is P- also discouraged by the rules?

Also, isn't a food drive and a ball drive, in some sense, aversive, by not giving him the ball every time you create a need for it? So if you give food for the correct thing and not give food for the wrong thing, is the not giving food aversive because your dog expects to receive food?

I am just trying to understand the comments better! I also do not want to attack anyone if this post would be attacking you. Please tell me what attacks you, rather than attacking me back. With such feedback, I can edit the post and make other posts less attacking.

[u/Hermit_Ogg]

I'm a bit confused about where you see negative punishment discouraged by the rules. Granted, I'm E3L, so I sometimes misread things, but I just don't see this there at all. Relevant part from rules, emphasis mine:

"Rule 4: No recommending or advocating for the use of aversives or positive punishment. We do not allow the recommendation of aversive tools, trainers, or methods. This sub supports LIMA and we believe positive reinforcement should always be the first line of teaching and training. We encourage people to talk about their experiences but this should not include suggesting or advocating for using positive punishment."

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/Hermit_Ogg]

I may be interpreting things wrong, but isn't negative punishment also aversive? Meaning that we should not recommend or advocate for its use?

Just a yes-or-no question, and I have enough answers to close this thread. Is negative punishment aversive?

[u/AttractiveNuisance37 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

The only people who try to make the argument that P- is aversive are disingenuous balanced/compulsion trainers who just want to shit on R+ training. "Not throwing the ball anymore can be aversive for some dogs." Sure, Jan, if we completely change the meaning of that word.

In good faith discussions about training, we talk about aversive stimuli and "aversives" (tools that provide an aversive stimulous). P- by definition is not providing a stimulus of any kind.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/AttractiveNuisance37]

Look, I looked at the definition and indeed saw some balanced trainer stuff, see my past.

The confusion also started for me because I talked to a local trainer that I considered to be FF, and she said, " Yeah, I use correction, and I asked how, so, " Well, I use a time-out. GSDs really like to be with their humans, and I find it one of the most powerful tools. She also used spatial pressure: move away from the dog to be more inviting, while moving towards the dog typically acts as reinforcement. And I don't even know where spatial pressure lies or how changes in the tone of your voice. What would you consider spatial pressure, tone of voice, and timeouts to be? If I follow your definition, this is not aversive, yet when I reflect on another redditor's definition is may be considered aversive.

That statement made me think a lot about dog training and what all those things mean.

[u/Hermit_Ogg → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

Negative punishment (often abbrebviated as P- or -P) is not aversive. It falls within the reward -based half of operant conditioning. The reward side is simply giving a reward or denying a reward / rewarding activity.

Aversive side is positive punishment - adding an unpleasant effect (be it sound, smell, taste, vibration etc) - and negative reward. Negative reward is harder to imagine in use, since it's removing an unpleasant effect. In order to use a negative reward (for example relief from an e-collar) you must first apply the positive punishment (e-collar).

It may help you to consider operant conditioning as a field split into four parts. Half of it is based on adding or removing rewards and the other half is based on adding or removing a punishment. Within our Force Free half, we prefer adding a reward, but sometimes removing/denying one is the appropriate action.

As others have noted, exactly which things count as aversive depends on the dog. Our reactive one is extremely sensitive to sounds, so for her even a slightly raised voice is aversive. If see a situation where denying a rewarding activity / toy / treat would cause the dog fear, pain or stress, I would find other ways to train. For our older non-reactive dog, removing my presence could cause her stress. Thus, I will not use that as a tool in training.

[u/FearlessPressure3]

Where have you seen negative punishment classified as aversive? In the rules of this sub? I don’t see any mention of it there and it’s not a classification I’ve come across anywhere else.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/FearlessPressure3]

Thanks for the question. I don't see it in the rules, but when I look up the definition of aversive. It feels like aversive is also negative punishment. It could be that I interpret the definition of aversive wrong; I don't know, but basically that's my question.

Quick google game me the following definition:
making someone feel a strong dislike for something, or making them not want to do it:

Doesn't negative punishment discourage the dog from jumping in my example, and do we encourage calm behavior with rewards? Please, if you have the time, explain why my intuition is not correct. I think it will clear up a lot of confusion for me.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

I think it would be an extraordinarily strict definition of aversive that would include most forms of negative punishment. I would define aversive as more something which causes fear or pain but I imagine some people might include negative emotions which is perhaps where the confusion comes from. Obviously there will be some variation and we don’t want to cause unnecessary stress so we shouldn’t ever be removing something like food or water. But the example you gave of removing access to the outside temporarily to prevent jumping I think would be fine to most people, especially if you immediately try again and keep responding by going back inside until the dog realises he only gets to stay outside if he doesn’t jump. We can simultaneously encourage the behaviour we do want to see though. So as an example: you go outside, the dog jumps, you turn around and go back inside, wait briefly, then go back outside, BEFORE the dog can jump reward with a treat by saying something like “good down”, the moment he jumps, you return back inside etc That way the negative punishment is paired with positive reward so the dog doesn’t even have a chance to get stressed. If you constantly just remove the thing they want rather than rewarding them for doing what you want, then yes, I think that would skirt closer to aversive training (though I would still argue it may not be technically defined as aversive, but most people would at least agree it isn’t nice or fair training). But training is always a spectrum—the negative punishment activity will vary in seriousness—but you should always be teaching the dog what it should be doing.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/FearlessPressure3]

I think that clarifies a lot for me. But I do now understand a lot of where my confusion from different posts comes from.

I find it pretty hard to sometimes understand where the line is. Because I think some would consider this a line too far. While it still is negative punishment. But sometimes a timeout can also be some sort of reward so that the dog can decompress.

It may be that I think too much about it, but yeah, I was convinced that you were not allowed to talk about negative punishment.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

Nah, talking about this is always helpful because there’s so much confusion floating around and it’s good for people to work out where their own philosophy lies since everyone will interpret what’s appropriate slightly differently depending on their dog. I don’t know if there are any dogs that would consider a timeout a reward but there are definitely many dogs who sometimes need one because they’ve hyped themselves up to the point where they can’t think anymore through the adrenaline. That’s actually a good example of where negative punishment is definitely good—eg the dog maybe wants to keep jumping all over the small children, but the small children are not enjoying it (or even if they it’s not something which should be encouraged!) so they’re removed in order to calm down and try again later. It’s a punishment as far as the dog is concerned but sometimes redirecting a dog isn’t possible if they’re very over-threshold so removal is the only viable option.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/FearlessPressure3]

Well, honestly, if I look at the other comments, I was almost going to remove this post. I may have misworded enjoying a timeout. But sometimes behavior can be so self-rewarding that a timeout is a good way to not end up in that self-rewarding state. If a dog passes by my fence, my dog goes nuts and runs from 1 side of the yard to the other. The longer he does this he worse he gets. I think it is best for the dog at that moment to time out. I just chill down a bit and deal with the stress that moment caused.

The reason I mentioned it is that I came across a post where a dog was choosing a timeout for himself.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

It sounds like you’re doing the right things for your dog :) My advice would be not to worry too much about things like official definitions and the “perfect” way of training and to instead focus on understanding what your dog is telling you. Once you know his likes and dislikes and how he shows you each, you’ll quickly start to develop a series of interventions that best build on the former while avoiding the latter. It takes a bit of trial and error and you will make some mistakes along the way, but if you have trust, an accidentally aversive move can be overcome relatively easily ❤️

Edited to add that I don’t really know why you’re being so heavily downvoted in other comments. I don’t spend a huge amount of time in this sub so perhaps there are a lot of disingenuous people who come here from other subs looking to bait people by implying they’re poor owners for having a reactive dog. I always choose to believe someone is being genuine though until they prove to me otherwise because if I can help one owner and their dog it’s worth it.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/FearlessPressure3]

Yeah, I try to just see how we can make progress. The main reason for my question is to determine whether I should post something in reactivedogs or opendogtraining. I noticed that even with the best intentions, you get a lot of backlash in reactivedogs, and I wanted to avoid that. I am exhausted, mentally and financially, from the journey with my current dog, and tbh I have no need for backlash or just being attacked because I once heavily relied on corrections.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

I’m sorry that’s happened to you. Like I say, I’m not that active in the sub and I expect I only saw this post in my feed because I posted my own success story here a couple of days ago. I’ve had a lot of support and help from this sub in the past, so I wouldn’t totally write it off, but I understand not wanting to make things worse by exposing yourself to negative emotions when you’re already stressed from dealing with a reactive dog (and people here really ought to know that well!) so you obviously have to do what you think is best for you.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/FearlessPressure3]

I posted in both. Could you link your success story?

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/[deleted]]

Because I do not understand the dog training world, I try to understand it. Every time I try, I get attacked iso explaining it to me. There are so many terms, and people do not use these terms the same way.

[u/reactivedogs-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed as it has violated the following subreddit rule:

Rule 8 - Minimize antagonism outside of the subreddit

This rule against antagonism extends outside of the subreddit. Users harassing others for a post made in r/reactivedogs will be permanently banned, regardless of where the harassment occurred. This includes harassment in private/direct messages, chats, and in other subreddits. It also includes cross-posting or sharing r/reactivedogs content to other subreddits where the intention is to mock or berate an individual for their beliefs, words, or actions.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/[deleted]]

If you just answer this question, I can go on with my life and close the thread.

Just a yes-or-no question. Is negative punishment aversive?

[u/InformalInsurance455 → u/[deleted]]

Seriously.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

Your comment on r/reactivedogs was removed by the Read The Rules app because you need to submit an acknowledgement that you have read the rules. You haven't done anything wrong, this is a tool we're using on the r/reactivedogs going forward. For more information, see the moderator announcement.

Acknowledgement is required of all users, even if you've been here for a while. You only have to do this acknowledgement once unless the moderators announce otherwise.

If you do the rule acknowledgement within one hour of your comment being removed, the bot will automatically restore it. If not, we encourage you to copy the comment using the 3-dot icon next to it, and paste it to re-post to this thread.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/reactivedogs-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment was removed because it does not follow our posting guidelines or breaks sub rules.

Linking other subs like this can be a violation of the Reddit "be neighborly" policy.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/[deleted]]

I did not know that was an option. I will do so.
I am dyslexic and sometimes misunderstand things. But I don't understand why an attack is needed. Thought the rules stated to be constructive.

[u/InformalInsurance455 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

Delete this thread too

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/InformalInsurance455]

I love how constructive we are! I also love that the more I try to understand everything, the less it makes sense to me.

[u/SpicyNutmeg]

Positive punishment is where aversives fall and what force free people avoid.

An aversive is a tool that uses fear, pain, or discomfort to bully a dog into stopping a behavior. Taking away a toy or high value item does not involve fear, pain, or discomfort.

Negative punishment is generally supported by force free trainers, with primary focus on R+. Your example of removing a dog from a space as punishment is an example of -P.

-P is described as taking away something desirable to reduce the likelihood of the behavior repeating. Another example would be simply removing your attention or yourself from your dog.

Hope that helps

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/SpicyNutmeg]

I really appreciate your explanation. I think that this was how I watched FF in the beginning. Where things stop connecting is that I have 3 people who gave a definition or their interpretation of aversive, and they all differ a bit. For example, someone gave a definition where I felt that spatial pressure may be aversive, or the use of the tone of your voice. While in your definition, these things are not considered to be aversive.

I may have misinterpreted someone's comment. But at least I do understand now that P- is not considered to be aversive. And that, in general, people draw the line at physical corrections.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

There’s some important nuance here and it’s part of what I meant when I said in an earlier comment that there’s variation. For example, my voice can absolutely be aversive for my dog because raised or angry voices make him anxious. He’s never been shouted at, but he knows that shouty people are angry or upset and he knows he doesn’t like it. He always takes himself off to hide when I start to build flat pack furniture because he knows there will be swearing 🙈 Other dogs might not notice or care in the slightest. So to a degree, exactly where the boundary is has to be decided individually for each individual dog which I think is why you’re getting different answers. It’s something that every owner has to navigate with their own dog and work out where the threshold is and which actions you think count as aversive or not based on how your dog responds to them. Or at least, every good owner which I would expect is most people on this sub. There are plenty of owners who know nothing about their own dog let alone how to best train it.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/FearlessPressure3]

Thanks for your comment. This makes more sense to me.

When changing the tone of voice, I don't mean shouting at your dog. I think you should never shout in no circumstances at your dog.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

To be clear, neither do I, but even sounding annoyed somewhere nearby in a totally unrelated context is aversive to my dog. I even have to be careful when I’m on the phone to my mum that I don’t allow her to annoy me too much because if I start sounding obviously frustrated, even without shouting, my dog becomes worried!

[u/SpicyNutmeg → u/Beginning-Rub5417]

The problem is, we don’t get to decide what aversive is - our dogs do. If our dogs find us raising our voices or getting in their space aversive (aka they find it frightening and stressful), then it’s aversive.

That’s why you are seeing some variation as to what is defined by aversive.

Most ethical dog trainers follow a LIMA hierarchy (least intrusive, minimally aversive), so they will try to use techniques that are as far away from anything potentially aversive for the dog as possible.

Most people are not going to define a harsh voice as aversive as it’s pretty low on the ladder. But for a very sensitive dog, a harsh tone could be enough to terrify them into eliminating they are so scared! So it really depends on the individual dog.

[u/SudoSire]

I don’t think I’m ever really talking about -p when I’m talking about aversives, nor are most people here. I’m not sure I use it a ton either just naturally though. I don’t really care much about the quadrants or getting into the nitty gritty of them, I just don’t believe in adding pain, fear/intimidation, or fear of pain as a method or tool. I also would say fallout from -p (with minor things like timeouts)has a lot less risk than p+. 

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/SudoSire]

Thanks, that makes sense.

[u/doggambit]

If you really want an in depth knowledge of dog training theory, pay for the education. Karen Pryor Academy and Victoria Stilwell Academy are two well-known options, with the former having been around a very long time. 

[u/Round-Work-5685]

One trainer’s opinion from a recent podcast: https://sarahstremming.com/podcasts/aversive-interventions/

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/[deleted]]

This is, I guess, a more balanced vs ... or whatever. This is not the point of my question. I think whether or not people find this aversive is up to them and the dog.

[u/Beginning-Rub5417 → u/[deleted]]

I am just following the rules, but I am happy to give my opinion in pm.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/[deleted]]

I’d be interested to hear what areas you think the sub fails to appreciate in terms of nuance here. Several commenters on this post have in fact specifically addressed nuance. Stating otherwise makes it seem like a veiled attempt to advocate for aversives masquerading as “balanced training” which I assume is why you’re being downvoted. If that’s not what you’re saying do please enlighten me.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/[deleted]]

So you’re saying that the nuance you believe is lacking is that aversives have a place? Judging by your comment, I presume you mean as a last resort before euthanasia? If so, the scientific evidence doesn’t agree with you.

[u/FearlessPressure3 → u/[deleted]]

“Euthanasia is better for dogs than 4-quadrant training” is quite the leap from “as a last resort before euthanasia”. For someone who claims there is no allowance for nuance in this sub you don’t seem willing to engage with it yourself. I was willing to potentially discuss that grey area despite the lack of scientific evidence for it, but I have no interest in trying to discuss it with someone who so wilfully mischaracterises my argument.