negative reinforcement examples in dog training

#Negative reinforcement examples in dog training professional#

However, it is hypothesized that behaviourally, dogs have been selected and bred for phenotypic behavioural characteristics such as reduced flight distance and increased sociability with humans (Price, 1999). Through selective breeding, the domestic dog (as an example) has been altered to be distinct genotypically and phenotypically from its ancestors, yet parts of the original genetic information are still there, and the dog is biologically still generally considered to be a subspecies of the wolf. Nonetheless, humans still live in close proximity to social canids as well as other domestic species, but the balance of power has tipped toward humans.

#Negative reinforcement examples in dog training professional#

Indeed, even today, there are recommended safety measures, and employment of protective equipment when handling domestic species, and domestic animal aggression can be problematic, sometimes requiring professional behavioural, welfare, and training advice. Indeed, how else would one form a co-operative alliance with another (potentially dangerous) individual, on the basis of benefits such as food acquisition, without understanding, on some level, that the food is willingly offered in return for reciprocal benefits? Conditioning alone does not account for the initiation of social relationships between the species, and serendipity does not account for a predator willingly cooperating with its prey (or vice versa) without some degree of mutual understanding. Original associations must have taken place entirely in the semiome, a concept described by Hoffmeyer ( 2014a), despite the marked sensory and cognitive differences between species. Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that humans and canids were able to communicate, without the requirement for formal training, or indeed any kind of ritualized interaction. Significantly, though, the ancestors of the domestic dog (various wolf species), are large predators capable of harming or even killing a human, rendering subjugation by humans very difficult. However, for this to have happened, individuals of the two species must have shared a part of their Umwelten, creating a Total Umwelt (Lewis 2020a) which paved the way for a semiosphere to form. Most commonly promote the idea of a mutualistic interaction, whereby humans and wolves co-operated during foraging and hunting, the defense of territory, and in social companionship (Vilà et al., 1999 Morey, 1994).

The domestication of dogs, for example, can be traced back to a period over 15, 000 years ago, yet theories as to how this process occurred are speculative. The aim is to create rich and more complex semiospheres around humans and domestic animals, which allow for individual agency and autonomy.Īcross cultures, human societies keep domesticated animals as companions. I therefore propose a move toward a dynamic semiosis and mutual understanding based upon Peirce’s phenomenology, resulting in a more balanced merging of Umwelten. As an alternative view to behaviourist-based learning theory and conditioning, I outline how enactivist theories of cognition support a semiotic approach to interspecific human-animal communication.

I conclude that when used as the primary means of communication, they have the potential to be detrimental to animal welfare, because the underlying social signal is control and resource dominance. I also examine the extent to which reward-based training methods promote better welfare, when compared to the more traditional methods which rely on aversive stimuli and punishment, if and when they are relied upon excessively. From a biosemiotic perspective, I discuss the role of animal training in today’s society and examine what binary reward- based reinforcement schedules communicate, semiotically. In this paper, I examine the way humans interact with domestic companion animals, with a focus on ‘positive reward-based training’ methods, particularly for dogs.