Training « Bird Training Blog

Archive for the ‘Training’ Category

Punishment Revisted

Monday, July 18th, 2011

In my last blog article I wrote about the importance of using the terms of Operant Conditioning (OC) and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) correctly and consistently. The article was inspired by what I considered to be a disappointing article published by Karen Pryor, in particular her discussion of Punishment. In response to my post I received a most excellent and well thought out email from Chris Shank, a well respected parrot trainer. Chris wrote:

I was quite interested in your response on Karen Pryor’s comments on punishment from her website. I’m currently reading Sidman’s, Coercion and its Fallout.’ Fascinating reading. In chapter 2, pg. 45, he says this about punishment:

‘But we define punishment without appealing to any behavioral effect; punishment occurs whenever an action is followed either by a loss of positive or a gain of negative reinforcers. This definition says nothing about the effect of a punisher on the action that produces it.

It says neither that punishment is the oppositie [sic] of reinforcement nor that punishment reduces the future likelihood of punished actions.’

This is indeed one area where Sidman appears to be at odds with almost all other contemporary behaviorists.

After receiving Chris’ email I did some additional research just to be sure that my understanding of this term was supportable. In addition to having a long conversation with Dr Susan Friedman on this subject I also referred to my copy of “Learning and Behavior” by Paul Chance.

What we have here is an example of how science works; ideas are postulated, discussed, and tested. Science is dynamic and the definition of Punishment is a wonderful example of how science progresses and changes as new ideas are presented, challenged, and tested. If science did not operate this way then behaviorists would not be thinking of Punishment at all since B. F. Skinner himself (the “father” of behavioral science) stated that from his experiments Punishment was ineffective. What those that have followed Skinner have discovered through challenge and experiment is that indeed Punishment does work and possibly the levels of aversives being used by Skinner were too low to be effective. The Chance book cites some excellent studies on Punishment and for those who wish to dig deeper into this subject I would highly recommend reading his chapter on Punishment.

The definition of Punishment I use is the one used by the majority of respected contemporary behaviorists and animal trainers:

“Punishment is a consequence delivered after a behavior that serves to reduce the frequency or intensity with which the behavior is exhibited,” Susan Friedman – “The Facts About Punishment“

“The procedure of providing consequences for a behavior that reduce the strength of that behavior,” Paul Chance – Learning and Behavior

“The procedure of providing consequence for a response that reduces the frequency of that response” – International Marine Mammal Trainers’ Association – Glossary

“The procedure of providing consequences for a behavior that decrease the frequency of that behavior.” – University of South Florida Glossary of Behavior

The way that science tests these definitions is by challenging them with real behavioral examples; indeed this is what Sidman does in another article where he challenges the definition (The Distinction Between Positive and Negative Reinforcement: Some Additional Considerations). He presents a number of test examples that he believes show that the above definition is wrong. For example he asks “When a parent ends a child’s eating between meals by hiding the cookie jar, has the child’s cookie eating been punished?” The answer is patently no, however I see this as comparing apples and oranges because what the parent did was to change the antecedents of behavior (hide the jar) and NOT apply a contingent consequence to reduce the behavior.

In reading the above article by Sidman it appears that his main argument against the contemporary definition of Punishment is two-fold. Firstly that it is not how Skinner defined it and secondly that the contemporary definition was simply adopted by behaviorists without the proper scientific discussion, debate, and challenge. In the light of the fact that Skinner stated that Punishment was ineffective one can only assume that any conclusions he drew about Punishment after this were flawed or at least based upon shaky ground. Since we now know that indeed Punishment does work we need an update to that part of the Skinnerian hypotheses; the contemporary definitions above provide that update. Secondly, in challenging the contemporary definition of Punishment Sidman is addressing the second part of his objection to the definition and it appears that the majority of contemporary behaviorists are meeting his challenge and successfully defending the definition I gave and those above. Therefore through his challenges he is actually encouraging contemporary behaviorists to fulfill the need for challenge, debate, and test of the definition. This is a good thing since to date those challenges have been answered.

So, I stand by my original article and its definition of Punishment, at least until through its continuing journey science brings a better way of expressing the concepts that we use to describe behavior. And that after all is what these terms are all about; building a common language that practitioners of behavior change (i.e. trainers) can use to communicate clearly with both peers and students.

Chris asked in her email if in the light of the writings of Sidman on this subject it was correct to say that Karen Pryor was “wrong” in her discussion of Punishment. Having read some more and talked with others about this I stand by the point of my article; the terminology of OC and ABA can be confusing even when used correctly, to mix historical and contemporary concepts can only lead to deeper confusion; especially when these concepts are held to be correct by the majority of contemporary behaviorists. I find this especially important in arena that Karen Pryor publishes her writings, the pet community. It is vitally important that those who have respect and reputation in that community communicate in a cohesive and accurate manner the principles and terminology of the science. I still feel that Karen Pryor’s article failed to meet those criteria and yes I believe she was wrong in her definition of Punishment.

My thanks go to Chris Shank for opening this discussion in such an interesting way.

In closing I would like to refer back to my previous articles about Primary and Secondary reinforcers. I was sent a clip from an internet posting that stated that my understanding of these terms was incorrect. I do not propose to reopen that discussion since I believe I clearly stated the correct definitions of those items in the original articles and that the poster of the message continues to be mistaken. I will simply refer anyone who is confused about the terms back to my original articles.

Sid.

Posted in Articles, Dr Susan Friedman, Questions, Reinforcement, Sid Price, Training, Weight management | No Comments »

Ethical training as a way of life

Monday, July 18th, 2011

The following was written as my “Letter from the President” in the current issue of the International Association of Avian Trainers and Educators Flyer member’s magazine. I received emails and even a phone call or two from my IAATE collegues who had found it useful and even inspirational. I believe it is worth publishing to the wider audience that reads my blog, I hope you also find it useful, informative, and maybe even inspirational … enjoy.

(First published in IAATE Flyer, Sumnmer 2010)

Recently my mind has been occupied with several training and behavior subjects. This has involved watching a little more closely not only how the subjects of the training session behave but also how their trainers behave in their interactions with other members of their team. Some of what I saw was perplexing and it took me on several thought paths and to more observation and reflection. The question that kept returning was, “if these folks are applying the current best techniques and getting good, sometimes excellent results with their animals, why are their teams and relationships with their colleagues in such disarray?”

Slowly I came to the conclusion that when interacting with colleagues and team members these otherwise gentle, least intrusive trainers were hooked on aversive stimuli in their management and leadership styles. “Attracted to aversive stimuli like a moth to a flame” was how it was summarized by Dr Susan Friedman in one of our recent conversations on this subject. The often used adage “setting them up to succeed” simply wasn’t present. I have to admit it came as a bit of a surprise that when dealing with the human members of their teams many people forget, or at least set aside, all the lessons they have learned so well for their animals.

During my reflections I spoke to several trainers on the receiving end of this aversive attention. There appear to be two extremes of leadership style; both fail their subjects in several areas. First there is the micromanager who seems incapable of allowing their team members to make a move without having almost complete hands-on themselves. What they are doing is taking all control away from their team members; the team has no power to make any decisions, anything they do is heavily criticized, leading to apathy and resentment. None of these effects should be a surprise to the trainer who understands behavior science.

At the other extreme is the leader who believes they are giving their team complete freedom by not interfering or supporting at all. While this approach can be not nearly as destructive as the micromanager it does bring its own problems, perhaps stronger this time for the leader. Things that are important to the team leader may not be performed, individuals begin to formulate their own priorities and focus on them, tension may develop between team members as they compete for their own agendas. Plus, the team leader often ends up just taking care of what needs to be done rather than directing the team and thereby creates a twelve-hour workday for them self.

Both of these situations can be avoided relatively easily especially for people with the skills that good animal trainers possess. Making the switch from the traditional training techniques for the animal collection was not easy. From their earliest years many, many people have become highly proficient in the use of punishment to gain control over others. Fortunately that is changing, at least for the animals; what is needed now is for the expansion of the ethical training techniques to be extended to encompass the whole team; to our colleagues, our supervisors, and the facility interns … everyone.

Apart from making the effort to keep the ratio of reinforcement to punishment as high as possible perhaps the most important aspect of being a good team member/leader is clear communication of expectations and responsibilities. Imagine the interaction with your colleagues like a play in which you are all actors. The play simply will not work unless everyone on the stage has the same script. Becoming angry because something was not done by a colleague when they were unaware that they were expected to do it just won’t help; be clear about expectations; be clear about responsibilities. Ensure that when the team decides what to do it is also clear about who will do it and by when. In a nutshell use one of the most powerful tools of empowerment, communication.

At a time when the forms of communication available to us are expanding almost exponentially it is vital to focus not on the volume of communication but the quality. Listen to what your teammates are saying, read their email carefully, think about and consider their motivation, their expectations … then respond.

Keep soaring,

Sid.

Posted in Dr Susan Friedman, Ethics, punishment, Reinforcement, Sid Price, Training | No Comments »

I need help with my phobic parrot!

Monday, July 18th, 2011

You read it all the time in internet chat groups and even magazine articles, “I need urgent help with my phobic (insert parrots species).” It seems to me that the majority of people asking these questions and many of those answering them do not understand what phobia is.

Let’s start by going to Webster’s for a definition of phobia:

“Noun: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

I feel that it is highly unlikely that most so-called “phobic” birds have the above described type of fear. The key words here are “inexplicable” and “illogical.” The root cause of such behavior can usually be traced to the history of interactions with the owner or in the case of a rehomed bird, the previous owner(s). This is hardly “inexplicable” or “illogical”. A bird that displays aggressive behavior towards hands is probably a bird that has never been “listened to” when it clearly communicated that the hand approaching was not welcome. Through its body language a bird communicates it is either ready or not to accept an approaching hand. When the owner sees, understands, and respects this communication the bird gains a little more control over its environment and with control comes confidence.

In addition using “phobic” to describe the behavior of a bird is applying what is defined in psychology as a construct or label. Regardless of whether the condition is based upon an illogical or inexplicable fear the word “phobia” only attempts to ascribe a condition or state to the bird, it does nothing to describe what the bird actually does, or the conditions in which it does it. Remember, the smallest meaningful unit of analysis is behavior and conditions.

The first step in addressing behavioral problems is to accurately describe the behavior, what happens immediately before the behavior (the antecedent), and what immediately follows the behavior that is maintaining it (the consequence). This is what is called a functional analysis of the problem and I wrote about this process in an earlier article. That article and another describing the basic terms of the science of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) should help those looking to address fear issues.

It is also important to note that fear behaviors may “appear” to be irrational and therefore phobic because the fear-eliciting stimulus appears harmless to the trainer. However these fear behaviors are not irrational from the perspective of how they come about, which is the process of Respondent Conditioning (to be discussed in a future article).

One final point, when trying to address unwanted behavior it is important to focus on what we would like the bird to do instead. Training a bird “what to do” is easier and less intrusive than trying to train it “what not to do.” The latter on its own implies the use of punishment (the reduction of a behavior) and aversives (things a bird will work to avoid). Both of these are things we try to avoid in training plans whenever possible. Training a bird “what to do” involves reinforcing desired behavior, the technique upon which we try to focus. As we build the reinforcement history of the desired behavior and at the same time attempt to avoid reinforcing the unwanted behavior we will tip the balance towards the bird offering the wanted behavior.

Sid.

Tags: constructs, labels, operant conditioning, phobia, phobic, respondent conditioning
Posted in Articles, Reinforcement, Sid Price, Training | No Comments »

Food and Weight Management – follow up

Friday, July 15th, 2011

My post about Food and Weight Management has drawn a few comments that I would like to address. Don’t forget that if you have any questions related to the articles posted here you are invited to use the email address (TrainingBlogAvianAmbassadors dot com) set up specifically to receive those questions. I can’t promise to address everything but I will read them all and do my very best to at least address the points you raise in a future article if at all possible.

One of the problems of blogging is that it is generally an unedited medium, by which I mean that most, if not all, of the posts people make to blogs are a stream of consciousness rather than a formal structured work that is ultimately edited by a third party. This means that sometimes a statement is made without the meaning or intent being completely clear to a reader. Great editors pick those mistakes up before they reach the reader. The Food/Weight Management article had a couple of those that a diligent reader picked up and rightly questioned. Also, I was asked “how do you decide if you need weight management rather than food management?” So, let’s get to it …

Let me address the last point first; how does a trainer make the decision to begin using Weight Management? The decision is really quite simple if one is always focused on behavior and that was one of the key points of the previous article. Let your observation of the behaviors you are training guide your training decisions. Also, don’t forget that adjusting diet is going to be the last tool you pull out of your toolbox. Be sure that you are setting up your bird for success by arranging the environment so that the bird is relaxed and comfortable. A critical aspect of starting out training is that the trainer and the bird have a history of positive interactions; don’t expect to bring home a new bird and start training a step up right away. It may take several days of walking by the cage and dropping treats into a bowl before one can even think about starting to train any specific behaviors. Always ask yourself “why should the bird interact with you?”, “what’s in it for the bird?” And remember that we want the bird to choose to be a partner in the training process.

So, back to the original question about when to use Weight Management; use it if the behavior you are training is just not shaping up the way you want, the response just isn’t there. However, only begin Weight Management after you have made sure that all of those things on the “will not perform” side of the motivational balance have been explored and if necessary corrected. Plus, be patient; do not withhold large amounts of food just to get the bird’s attention for training. I have heard of novices getting frustrated because their bird didn’t respond just the way they wanted so in their frustration they withhold a complete meal. This is just not necessary especially if the trainer is managing the food of the bird correctly. The need for gross changes in diet in my opinion are a reflection of the trainer’s lack of good diet management and rarely, if ever, justified or needed.

A phrase I used “relax the criteria” caused a little confusion. The context in which I used the phrase in the article was when a bird was in a new environment with lots of new potential distractions. Here I meant that I would relax my expectations of performance for the bird, e.g. if the behavior was a 20 foot flight to me I would start in this new environment just asking for a hop, then a flight of a few feet, gradually building the bird’s confidence in these new surroundings and for sure only raising my criteria as I observed good behaviorial responses. What I did not mean was that the trainer should continue to cue the behavior that was not working and accept the latency (delay to perform). Part of the process of generalization (performing behaviors regardless of environment) is to build the bird’s confidence not only in itself but also in the trainer. By setting the bird up to succeed (short hop and then short flights) the bird’s trust in the trainer is raised so that in the future in new environments this trust should increase the likelihood that the bird will perform the behaviors cued. Also, by relaxing the criteria and enabling the bird to perform a behavior we increase the number of times we are able to reward the bird, always a good thing! Repetition builds confidence – bird and trainer.

Another question related to how to remove some of the “will not perform” items from the motivational balance. As an example how do you train the bird to fly down from heights at a steep angle? Remember that we can always lower the weight of the bird and increase motivation to overcome the bird’s apprehension in making a steep downward flight. However, just because that works doesn’t make it the right choice for me. Reducing the weight again should be the last thing we think about doing. I will repeat a phrase here that should be one of the trainers’ mantras, set the bird up to succeed. First, before we placed our bird into an environment where it might have spooked up into that tall tree we should have trained it to fly down from high places. New trainers often forget that birds learn their flight skills through … flying. Therefore, in a safe environment we place our bird on higher and higher perches and allow them to learn to fly down. We train our bird to fly to places on cue and then send them into higher and higher tree branches (or meeting hall rafters!) and allow them to learn how to fly down. We set them up to succeed so that when they find themselves sitting high in a tree they already know how to fly down. The second part of the answer is for every trainer to observe and understand the limitations of their bird when it comes to its flight skills. No matter how much we fly our birds they never get as much “air time” as a wild bird, because of this their flight skills, while impressive, may never reach those of their wild cousins. Therefore we need to once again set them up to succeed by only asking them to perform behaviors we know they can perform. So, when your bird is high in a tree don’t stand right under the tree calling it down, move away from the tree and give your bird the “glide angle” it needs to make the flight.

Don’t forget:

Repetition builds confidence
Set your bird up to succeed
Ask yourself “What’s in it for the bird?”
Assume responsibility for all your bird’s behavior

Sid

Posted in Food management, Questions, Sid Price, Training, Uncategorized, Weight management | No Comments »

We are all trainers … all the time.

Saturday, June 18th, 2011

I saw the following post on Facebook recently and it reminded me of something that I believe every animal owner is apt to forget, and that is that we are ALL trainers ALL the time

I’ve had birds all my life, though admittedly no parrots larger than a cockatiel. I tend to be permissive and I don’t think in terms of training birds so much as learning to read their body language and making friends with them. I think it’s very hard to make a bird do anything…rather, you win it over with gentleness, consistency and rewards. – Cathy Kendall

At the time I read the above quote I commented that is was a wonderful description of training; in it Cathy expresses the essence of what I strive for in my classes, workshops, seminars, and training. I have written about this previously in the article “Ethical Training as a Way of Life.”

Every time we are in the presence of another sentient being we will make some change in the behavior of that being, albeit often times a subtle one. Therefore if we wish to have a good relationship with any animal, and I include Homo sapiens here, we need to be conscious of our interactions at all times. We have all heard of living “La Vida Loca”, now is the time to live “La vida ética.”

Sid

Avian Ambassadors

Promote Your Page Too