Most Positive Least Intrusive Trainers

January 15th, 2010

Using only positive reinforcement seems like the right thing to do, however telling anyone that is what they should do is possibly setting them up for failure by taking tools off the table that in some circumstances may be required. The world is just not built that way; nor are animals “wired” to operate that way. Aversive stimuli abound in nature and all animals encounter them and learn to avoid them. What I would like to discuss here is a more practical, more achievable goal that will yield results without significantly adversely affecting the relationship between you and your bird.

If you visit my Behavior and Training web site you will notice that the banner for each page has a subtitle – “Where least intrusive becomes most effective,” that subtitle is so much more than simply a way to catch your attention, it is a reference to the most ethical way of choosing the strategy used for behavior change and training. The maxim “least intrusive” embodies important principles that as animal caretakers we should follow as closely as possible. Just as in the field of medicine the Hippocratic principle of doing no harm is the basis for the decisions our doctors make when they plan an intervention to correct health issues, we as animal caretakers should adopt a similar principle, that of choosing the least intrusive strategy for behavior change and training.

Those who have read my articles before may look at this proposed principle and recognize a construct. I can hear the questions now, “What does least intrusive look like?” If you are asking that question then you are well on the way to understanding behavior science. However, constructs are useful provided that they are defined and well understood by those who use them, so let’s take a closer look at our adage “least intrusive.”

Dr Susan Friedman published an article in GoodBird magazine in December 2009 that defined intrusiveness by these two criteria:

  1. The level of social acceptability.
  2. The degree to which the learner maintains control while the intervention is in effect.

While the level of social acceptability is a highly personal, ethical judgment, research shows that not only psychologists but also teachers, parents, and children place positive reinforcement strategies ahead of punishment based procedures when considering acceptability. In addition, punishment-based procedures have considerable fall-out, the subject of a future article.

Research into the effects of a learner’s control of outcomes shows that when control is removed and the ability to escape aversive stimuli is removed they give up trying to escape. This effect, known as learned helplessness, has been observed in a wide range of species and it often persists even when control is returned.  To the greatest extent possible we must empower our birds to be able to use their behavior to control outcomes.  This is the function of behavior, to operate on the environment to affect outcomes. A failure to recognize this and the removal of such control may result in one or more undesirable behaviors such as feather picking, unacceptable vocalizations, etc.

I hope that by reading the definition of least intrusive you will recognize that the effectiveness of a strategy is simply not enough. The intrusiveness of the procedure must also be considered. To guide us and to set a standard by which we can judge our techniques Dr Susan Friedman has proposed a hierarchy of procedural alternatives. Below you will see a graphic that shows the strategy hierarchy proposed by Dr Friedman in an article that was first published in GoodBird magazine (Vol 4-1; Winter 2009) that this article is based upon and rather than repeat or paraphrase her information here I strongly encourage you all to read “What’s wrong with this picture? Effectiveness is not enough.”

Intervention Hierarchy - Copyright Friedman 2008

To return to the original theme of this article, the statement that only positive reinforcement should be used, I would like to change this. Rather than adopting what may well prove to be an impossible or even impractical goal we should set ourselves up for success with our birds with the goal of maintaining the highest possible ratio of positive reinforcement strategies to other more intrusive strategies. Certainly, when considering a strategy for behavior change we should start at the top of the above hierarchy and only proceed to a lower level when we have exhausted the options at the current level. Also note that before we begin to consider positive reinforcement strategies we have two levels of intervention available to us. Attempting to apply a positive reinforcement strategy to address a behavioral issue that has medical/physical roots does not make sense, nor does it address the needs of the bird.

In applying the least invasive strategy we will begin to build what Steve Martin calls a “trust account” with our birds in his article “It’s about relationships.” Our goal is to make the maximum number of deposits into that trust account using the strategies from the top of the hierarchy down to positive reinforcement. By keeping these deposits high in number our occasional need and application of lower level strategies will make withdrawals from that account but should nowhere near deplete the account. So let’s not be “Positive Reinforcement Trainers” let’s be “Most Positive, Least Intrusive Trainers.” Our birds will really appreciate it!

Sid.

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

The Misuse of Weight Management

August 20th, 2009

 

I have written about Food and Weight Management before; they are valuable techniques when used correctly, carefully, and appropriately. In general, Weight Management is not something that a companion parrot owner even needs to consider. By careful management of the required daily diet of one’s birds an owner can usually achieve their training goals. So it was with great disappointment that I came across a blog article recently entitled “Are Pet Shop Birds Trainable?” It is a great example of what not to do.

The subject of the training was a Budgie or Parakeet. The concept of using Weight Management on such a tiny bird is just plain scary. What was even scarier was the extent to which this bird must have been deprived of food in order to achieve the writer’s goal. The writer noted that the bird had a “super stuffed full weight” of some 42grams. I have to assume that this weight was when the bird had free access to food with no rationing. There was also an “average” weight, I have no idea what that means since the weights and the number of samples were not published. However there were two more weights given; the first was the “training weight” and the second was a “too highly motivated” weight. Just the expression of a “training weight” shows how completely the writer misunderstands the proper use of weight management. If you refer back to my previous articles (links below) you will understand that there is no single training weight.

However that is not my biggest issue with this article. Let us examine the percentage weight reduction used to motivate this tiny bird (42 grams is about 1.4 ounces). If we consider the so-called training weight of 27grams we find that this represents a 35% drop in weight! Plus, the writer says that they learned the “proper” weight in a week. Can you imagine the extent of the food deprivation to reduce this bird’s weight by 35%? in a week The abuse does not end there because the writer notes a third weight, the “too highly motivated” weight; in this case the bird weighed 25grams, even less. As a percentage drop that is 40% below the highest weight reported, almost half its body weight in less than a week. Of course the bird was highly motivated … it was on the path to starvation. In my opinion this was clearly abuse of the bird.

These levels of weight reduction are simply not justified on so many grounds. The process described by the weights recorded by the writer of the article appears to take place over short time period, suggesting extreme food deprivation in order to motivate this bird.

Now who is the writer you may be asking? Well I am sure that you are all capable of using Google to track down the article, I do not propose to even mention their name I am so appalled that they did this and then had the complete lack of judgment to write about it as an achievement. I will note that the trail leads back to somewhere I think you will find enlightening, but perhaps not surprising.

I trust that everyone reading this will see the folly of what was described and tell everyone you know about the article.

See: Food and Weight Management and A follow Up

Sid.

 

 

Posted in Articles, Ethics, Food management, Sid Price, Weight management | No Comments »

6th Annual Raptor Handling Class

June 20th, 2009

Avian Ambassadors’ 6th Annual Raptor Handling Class

Saturday 11th and Sunday 12th July, 2009

From 9.30a to 4.00p at

The Marriott Hotel, Albuquerque, NM

Meet the stars of the Flights of Education Shows

We are pleased to announce the dates for our 6th Annual Raptor Handling Class. This year’s class will be held at the Marriott Hotel in Uptown Albuquerque on the weekend of July 11th and 12th, 2009.

This year we have a guest presenter; Robin Shewokis of The Leather Elves will present “Enrichment for Captive Raptors”. Robin has consulted with zoos around the world on the subject of environmental enrichment for captive animals. This is a great opportunity – having Robin visit us in Albuquerque and present during our class.

In addition to Robin’s presentation the class includes:

  • Basic raptor biology
  • Equipment used with raptors in educational programs
  • Handling techniques
  • Raptor possession permit requirements
  • Introduction to science based training strategies
  • Hands-on time with birds

Since this class has a hands-on component the size of the class is limited so please make your reservation as soon as possible.

The cost of the class is $65.00 per person; this includes a printed handbook and a lunch snack on each day. Please call (505) 349 5714 or email classesatAvianAmbassadorsdotcom  (classesatAvianAmbassadorsdotcom)   for a registration form today. Places in the class will be filled on a first come first served basis. Your registration will be confirmed when we acknowledge receipt of payment.

We have secured a special room rate at the Marriott Uptown Hotel of $89.00 per night for those travelling to Albuquerque. Please call (505) 881-6800 to make room reservations and be sure to mention the “Raptor Handling Class” in order to secure the special rate.

Posted in raptors, Reinforcement, RHC, Sid Price, Training | No Comments »

Train your Parrot to Scream

June 7th, 2009

While  the title of this article is a little “tongue-in-check” I do want to discuss how people train their birds to scream and also how at least one internet marketer suggests you do that … although they actually claimed the method would stop screaming, “… in a few days” of course.

 

I received a number of free “training” newsletters from an internet source this last week. One of them offered a way to stop your parrot screaming. Loud vocalizations are indeed a common behavioral issue for companion parrot owners so I read with interest. The advice started out quite well by suggesting one keeps a journal to indentify the times when the bird was vocalizing loudly. This is good advice and is for sure the first step in any attempt to modify that behavior. However, having started out so well and identified that the example bird screamed when someone was in the kitchen the following advice was then offered:

 

To solve this problem you can keep the pet near the kitchen and when he starts to scream throw a little bit[e to] him and keep him happy.

 

Hmm, now let me see what just happened; the bird started making noise so the owner gave him some food … sounds like the potential for positive reinforcement to me and that means that the probable future behavior is that the bird will scream when the owner is in the kitchen. So, if you want to train your bird to scream I think this is a very good technique.

 

Now, my guess is that the reason you are reading this is because what you really want is to have your bird not scream loudly, too much. I say too much because it is a fact that parrots can be loud, all parrots can be loud. It is simply a part of their nature and from time to time even the quietest bird may get a little “out of control” vocally. To get started trying to control this, just like the example above, we need to identify when the noise occurs. For example, if it is when you leave the room the noise may be your bird making a contact call. This is the function of the behavior; the need to make contact with the rest of the flock. Stopping this behavior is one of the most difficult things to do and can take a very long time. In fact if your goal is to stop the contact call you may be wasting your time trying! Probably not what you wanted to read right? However there is hope …

 

As I said the behavior has a function (making contact) so the best strategy is to try to replace the loud noises with a more acceptable vocalization for the function of contact. This is not something that can be done overnight, it takes time and patience on the part of the owner. Start by choosing a vocalization already used by your bird, one that is not so loud or high energy as the scream. Every time you hear the chosen vocalization reinforce it by responding in kind if you are out of the room or by offering a treat if you are near your bird. When the loud noise occurs ignore it, do not respond and for sure do not enter the room. What we are trying to do is to make the new sound more rewarding than the old sound. The old sound may never go away; indeed it may resurge from time to time, however by keeping the reinforcement for the “good” sound high we can hopefully keep it at the top of your bird’s preferred list of contact calls.

 

As you can imagine when we bring home a new young bird it is very important that we are aware of how we may easily train him to be a loud, obnoxious adult. Should your new bird start making a loud noise be careful how you respond.

 

Tossing a treat may well make him go quiet at that moment … however when he sees you near the treat jar …

 

When you are on the phone and he makes noise … hand over a treat and the phone may become the cue for making noise in the future.

 

By ignoring these loud vocalizations when the bird is young and by reinforcing acceptable communication we can hopefully avoid some of the really loud vocalizations in the future. The reinforcement of acceptable noises is really important; we need to give the bird a means of fulfilling the function of contact. If we simply try to stop the contact calls we are probably setting ourselves and our birds up for failure.

 

Sid.

 

Tags: ,
Posted in screaming, Sid Price, Training | No Comments »

Reinforcing and Punishing Consequences

March 4th, 2009

In an earlier article I wrote about the basics of Applied Behavior Analysis so I don’t propose to cover them again here. What I would like to talk about is how one identifies a consequence as either a reinforcer or a punisher.

 

First, remember that in order to really affect a behavior the stimulus delivered or removed must be both contingent upon and contiguous with the behavior. Contingency is the if/then relationship of behavior and consequence. If the bird does this (behavior) then this (stimulus) is delivered/removed. Contiguity describes the tight relationship in time between the behavior and the contingent consequence. The closer in time these two events the stronger the effect of the consequence (stimulus) on the future behavior.

 

The labeling of a stimulus as a reinforcer or punisher is contingent upon the effect that the stimulus has upon the behavior. Since to date we have no method of knowing what an animal thinks we must rely upon observing the effect of the stimulus on the behavior, then and only then do we know whether the stimulus presented (+) or removed (-) is a reinforcer (R) or punisher (P).

 

Therefore one can not discuss if a consequence is R+, R-, P+, or P- without FIRST defining the behavior. This is why one must operationalize (write down the ABC) the behavior, then we can identify clearly the nature of the stimulus.

 

This was demonstrated in the last few days with an online discussion of the use of jesses with raptors. Jesses are the leather straps attached to the legs of raptors to restrict their movement. One writer identified the strategy as punishment, the other as reinforcement. How can that be? As I wrote above these consequences do not exist in isolation from the behavior and if we operationalize the behavior we can see that BOTH writers were to some degree correct. Assuming that the hawk is standing on the gloved hand and something occurs that startles the bird.

1A.    To be deterinined

1B.     Hawk flies from the gloved hand

1C.     The leash and jesses become taut 

Probable Future Behavior (PFB) The hawk will fly less often from the gloved hand.

Thus we have punishment (the likelihood of the hawk flying from the gloved hand is reduced) and the stimulus was added (the taut equipment placing restraint on the legs), therefore with THIS behavior we have a Positive Punishment (P+) strategy.  

2A.    The leash and jesses become taut 

2B.     Hawk returns to gloved hand

2C.     The leash and jesses become slack

Probable Future Behavior (PFB) The hawk will remain on the gloved hand more often.

Thus we have reinforcement (increased staying on the gloved hand) and the stimulus was a removal (the leash and jesses become slack and restraint is taken off legs), with THIS behavior we have a Negative Reinforcement strategy (R-).

From this example we can hopefully see that before one can know what the strategy being used is one must start by identifying the behavior. Are we talking about reducing the likelihood of flying from the gloved hand (punishment) or are we talking about increasing the bird remaining on the gloved hand (reinforcement).

This example also demonstrates that in order for our negative reinforcement strategy to work an aversive (restraint) had to be present as an antecedent. This need for an aversive in this situation should lead us to seek a different strategy for training the bird to remain on the gloved hand. The preferred approach would be to heavily reinforce the hawk for standing calmly on the gloved hand and, in a controlled environment, not to be holding the restraints, but to allow the bird to move freely off the hand to a nearby perch when it so chooses. When it returns to the hand it is once again reinforced.

 

It is worth noting that the original discussion was not really about initial training but the continued use of jesses for restraint. When working with raptors in public situations it is a matter of public safety to have this level of control of the bird, regardless of the training level. The best a trainer can do is to build a strong history of reinforcement on the gloved hand with the bird to minimize attempts to fly away. However, again in the interests of public safety, it is necessary to have the backup restraint of the equipment available.

 

In summary, talking about consequences in isolation from the behavior they are contingent upon has no meaning. The important word here is “contingent” and in order to be contingent there must be a specific behavior that is being discussed. Simply by operationalizing the behavior as was done above will reveal the nature of the consequence.

 

Please don’t forget, if you have a training question or comment please write to href="TrainingBlogatavianambassadorsdotcom">TrainingBlogatavianambassadorsdotcom and if appropriate for an article I will try to address your questions and comments.

Sid.

 

 

 

 

Posted in punishment, raptors, Reinforcement, Sid Price, Training | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »