Those who have read my articles before may look at this proposed principle and recognize a construct. I can hear the questions now, \u201cWhat does least intrusive look like?\u201d 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\u2019s take a closer look at our adage \u201cleast intrusive.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dr Susan Friedman published an article <\/a>in GoodBird magazine in\u00a0December 2009\u00a0that defined intrusiveness by these two criteria:<\/p>\n 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,\u00a0the subject of a future article.<\/p>\n Research into the effects of a learner\u2019s 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.\u00a0 To the greatest extent possible we must empower our birds to be able to use their behavior to control outcomes.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cWhat\u2019s wrong with this picture? Effectiveness is not enough.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n\n
![\"Intervention](\"https:\/\/avianambassadors.com\/BirdTraining\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/01\/Hierarchy-300x275.png\" "\\"Intervention")
<\/p>\n