Science: Friend or Foe?
The following study was sent to me recently:
http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jeab/articles/2012/jeab-98-01-0105.pdf
The question being evaluated was the relative value of food or social interaction as a reinforcer for dogs being asked to perform a simple task (nose touch).
To look at this question, fourteen shelter dogs were evaluated - they were offered opportunities to work for either food or personal interaction (4 seconds of petting/praise) and their responses were recorded. In addition, four "pet" dogs had the same test run with their owners, to help clarify if the results were a factor of whether or not the dog's personal relationship with the trainer was important.
It comes as no surprise to me that the dogs performed much better when food was the reinforcer rather than four seconds of personal interaction.
So far so good.
Here's where things start to go wrong: One of the conclusions was that: "Social interaction functioned as a low-value reinforcer." Further, for the one dog that worked just as hard for praise/petting as for food, one of their possible explanations was that the dog may have been "conditioned" (by the pairing of food with praise prior to the shelter), to value praise.
The good news is that they did point out that individual dogs might have different responses to the value of praise.
Why does this research disturb me?
First, because four seconds of petting/praising is NOT social interaction. It is four seconds of petting/praising. That is not genuine. We do not praise dogs (nor people) in that manner. When my dogs do something well, I do not praise/pet for a predetermined amount of time and then cut it off, asking for more work. How can a dog possibly perceive that as genuine interaction? Here's another way to ask the question: Was the researcher genuinely pleased with the dog, or simply going through the motions as dictated by the research design? My gut tells me it's the latter; remember, scientists are expected to be detached.
Praise is GENUINE; it only works if you mean it! If you offer it to train your dog as part of an experiment then yes, it is likely to fail. Some dogs will take what they can get - any praise is good praise. But most dogs accept praise from those they care about - when they believe it is real. Really, it's not so different from people.
Second, the value of praise is built over time with a specific person and style of interaction. If I want my dogs to work for praise, I will have to practice it - not by pairing it with food, but by finding the type of praise that works for that particular dog. Like humans, dogs are individuals - unlike eating, social interaction is not a one size fits all proposition. Each of my dogs works best for a different type of personal interaction, and none of them would work for praise from a stranger. It took me time to find those interactions, and with the youngest dog I'm still actively searching. This doesn't mean it's not real, but it does mean that it's not nearly as obvious as food to use in training.
If you did this study with a toy (ball or tug) instead of food, you would almost certainly get the same results. Most dogs do not value toys as much as food, unless you make an effort to build the value of toys. As a rule, my young dogs prefer food to toys, but after I work on developing their love of toys, they will, without exception, choose the toys over the food. Indeed, if I bring out food they act like they are being punished. Note that I never paired the toys with the food; in my mind that kills the dog's natural interest in toys. I simply use the toys in a way that brings out a dog's natural interest in playing with objects - the underlying primary motivator of pursue, grab and fight.
Is this preference for toys over food the same for all dogs? Of course not. Dogs will have innate interests and tendencies, just like people! I'm sure there are dogs that care a lot about food and relatively little about personal interaction. And there are other dogs that are highly motivated by personal interaction or toys, but not as much by food. It is noteworthy that the breeds of dogs most often selected for AKC performance events are also the breeds of dogs that seem to take most easily to toys and personal interaction as effective reinforcers.
I have no argument with the researcher's conclusion that food is the reinforcer of choice for training most dogs - it is certainly the easiest for the average person to use, it is effective with a high percentage of dogs, and you can get in a whole lot of repetitions in a short time. But that conclusion does NOT support the second conclusion that the researcher came to; that genuine praise is a relatively low value reinforcer, any more than it would be correct to say that toys are a relatively low value reinforcer simply because most dogs will initially work better for food than toys.
I worry that these kinds of conclusions devalue how we view dogs. When dogs are subjects, controlled by their desire to eat and fundamentally uninterested in humans, then we give them "object" status. Objects have no innate value beyond whatever monetary or sentimental value we may attribute to them. The odds that people will do ugly things to dogs go up when they are objects. When you view dogs as selfish takers rather than as partners, you undermine the innate value of dogs and people as a team - the middle that grows between them. It's not so different than the years when Skinner's behaviorism ruled child rearing - the children's need for cuddling and love was scoffed at since only food, warmth and a clean diaper made the radar. Some of those babies died. Apparently no one could quantify the need for love, so they concluded that it did not exist.
When I sit by a whelping box and watch four week old puppies wag their tails and smile up at me, I'm hard pressed to say they don't feel good in my presence. At that age no one has given them food, so they cannot associate food with humans; the puppies simply enjoy my company. For sure there are other explanations about why they choose to interact with me, but the one that "feels" right is that they have an innate interest in humans. No, I've never studied it. I've simply lived with dogs and puppies, watched them carefully, and played with them for thirty years.
I've never considered myself anti-science, so why this rant?
Because science forms the backbone of much that I believe about dogs - that training is best when dogs are working towards positives rather than away from aversives. I believe that because it is my experience, and it happens to be backed up by research. I want to believe that science can come to genuinely accurate conclusions that I can use when making my own decisions about how to proceed in a given circumstance with a specific dog.
I find it hugely damaging to human/canine relations to suggest that we are a secondary reinforcer; that dogs only interact with us because they are hoping for food. My guess is that the purpose of this research was to support the use of food in training - that is good. Unfortunately, I know that many people will interpret it to mean that dogs and people cannot have mutually enjoyable social interactions - that is bad.
Sometimes I wonder if there are animal researchers who have never simply loved a dog. If you are a scientist, then for one minute, stop with your science and sit with a few dogs. Pet those dogs. Watch them interact with each other and with you - no food involved. After you do this, tell me that the only reason your dog cares is that you have been conditioned as a secondary reinforcer.
Bullshit.
26 comments
I am a scientist… AND I actually took my dog (who is not terribly food motivated) to participate in some experiments they were doing at Harvard…. many of which were to evaluate the studies they were planning on doing, and collect some preliminary data and tweak the studies so that they could get meaningful data. The most notable one was a variation on the “dog follows pointing finger to find treat” experiment. So they warmed the dog up by having the grad student point at the bowl… dog gets treat… dog expects praise and gets it from me, but not the grad student (who was trying to not interact with the dog, and kept a very still face the whole time). The second time my dog got the treat, sniffed the grad student, came back to me, but was definitely wary about the game, the third time, she walked up to the grad student, looked right at her face, turned her back on her and lay down. It was hilarious. The graduate students and I had a long long discussion about the true meaning of their experiments based on their experimental design, some of the tweaks they might want to make in their choice of dogs with and without prior training, and the signs of stress in a dog (Mine didn’t do any more experiments, as she was pretty stressed to be in a room where people were actively ignoring her with stern expressions, which is interesting on its own as she is not particularly an attention-seeking dog). They had interacted with lots of dogs, but I don’t think they understood just how closely dogs respond to subtle body language, much less glaring body language. I hope I gave them a lot of good information that they can use to inform their future studies
My interpretation is that like most animal studies, it is a broad guideline. I’ve worked in a big chain dog training Co. for almost 5 years and I see hundreds of different dogs a week with their owners.
I think that accomplished performance dog people are not the norm and most people do not interact with dogs the way they do.
I have people all the time come to me and some of the first things out of their mouths are “I don’t want to use food, my last dog was trained by love.” For me this is something I can direct those people towards. Learning to play properly and interact meaningfully with your dog so that it becomes a primary reinforcer is something that is learned for the human, if you are going to a big chain Co. (which MANY dog owners do) then you aren’t trying to learn to play with your dog in any other way than for it to blow off some steam. I can talk until I am blue in the face, I can demo my own dogs, it doesn’t matter. They want the most direct result from A to B with the minimum amount of work.
Private clients, that is a little different, but think of the vast majority of dog owners, this is a great article for them.
A lady at work, the other day, said someone said to her that he thought are not capable of thinking… hmm… I said, go to any dog sport trial sometime, and you’ll see those dogs thinking. It’s sad that people do not understand.
There is good science and there is bad science. I’m a scientist, I agree with you. Bullshit.
I’ve mentioned before my previous dog was a Samoyed that loved to work. She taught me that when training she preferred ball playing as a reward to eating her breakfast. I never paired ball playing with food. In fact the day I finally figured out what she preferred was when she walked away from her breakfast (raw) in my hand to dig a tennis ball out of my training bag. She wanted the relationship not just food.