Those that advocate for force free (FF) training methods (both trainers and carers alike) regularly face criticism, particularly online. Engaging with critics is usually wasted time and energy, particularly when they are not open to meaningful dialogue. The purpose of this post is not to encourage participation in the “method wars”. I am writing this for those who have an honest wish to learn about modern training and might be struggling to resolve seemingly valid criticisms.
Criticism: Force free training, by definition, doesn’t exist.
Force is defined as “coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence” (n); “make someone do something against their will” (v).
Considering FF training requires the absence of coercion, compulsion, and threat of violence, and the willing cooperation of the animal, I find the criticism flawed. And while I agree that dogs do not have many choices, I reject the assertion that careful, cooperative management is enforcement. Additionally, training and management are not the same thing. Managing dogs with tools to keep them safe and to set boundaries is not training. Management can play a role in the training process, but if done carefully and skilfully, does not negatively impact the dog’s training experience if the dog is a willing participant in the training process.
"...some trainers would rather attribute blame than take responsibility for the training outcomes[.] After all, punishing a blameless dog would be...cruel and unethical."
Criticism: Effective behaviour modification requires the use of all four of the operative conditioning quadrants.
This may be something you believe if your understanding of behvioural science is limited to Skinner's operant conditioning model for behaviour modification (applied behavioural analysis). However, research suggests that operant/instrumental learning is not the only consideration in behavioural change. The use of behaviour modification in the very problematic and unethical practice of conversion therapy is a good example of the limitations and dangers of behaviour modification, particularly when using punishment.
Yes, FF trainers only use positive reinforcement, but we know that teaching a dog what to do rather than punishing them for things we do not want them to do is a kinder and more effective way to train. Engagement, meeting the needs of the dog, building resilience, teaching impulse control and emotional regulation, as well as environmental and social support, all positively impact the behaviour of the dog and are important consideration in FF dog training.
Criticism: Withholding rewards/reinforcement is negative punishment, therefore "force free" is a myth.
Negative punishment is “the removal of a pleasant stimulus to decrease a behaviour”.
This criticism relies on unfamiliarity of operant conditioning to be considered valid. Not offering a reward isn't the same as taking something pleasant away. When teaching and shaping a desired behaviour, “withholding rewards” isn’t an action or behaviour, it is the absence of an action or behaviour and has no function. Withholding expected rewards could be aversive to a dog if an element of fear and negative social pressure is present in the training session, but FF training is free of fear and pressure. When dogs enjoy training, and learning is reinforcing, the dog doesn't find an unsuccessful attempt aversive. Positive reinforcement is a communication tool. Not rewarding the dog is like not saying anything.
In the case of a dog responding to a known cue but not to the satisfaction of the trainer, the FF trainer will not withhold positive reinforcement. Some FF trainers might offer a lower value reward in this instance, while others will still reward the effort with a high value reinforcer. All FF trainers will try and figure out why the dog did not respond to the cue the way that they expected and make the necessary modifications required to achieve the desired outcome, and the reason is usually one of four:
1) The trainer’s communication was unclear.
2) The cue wasn’t reinforced adequately, and expectations were too high.
3) The reinforcer was inadequate.
4) The dog may be experiencing pain or discomfort.
Notice that none are the fault of the dog? Could it be that some trainers would rather attirbute blame than take responsibililty for the training outcomes? After all, punishing a blameless dog would be...cruel and unethical.
Criticism: Positive reinforcement can be aversive; therefore, FF can’t be free from aversives.
Most trainers, regardless of their training philosophy, use R+ as the predominant tool for operant conditioning, and therefore most methods have a risk of unintentional aversive consequences when using positive reinforcement.
How can R+ be aversive? The careless use of positive reinforcers can be coercive. Coercion is “the act or process of persuading someone forcefully to do something that they do not want to do”. An example of this would be using a high value reinforcer to lure a dog into an unpleasant or frightening situation. For R+ to be coercive there needs to be an element of conflict or fear. Considering that the hallmark of FF training is the avoidance of fear and conflict, FF training methods are protective against coercion. R+ can also be aversive if they do not meet the expectations of the dog. If the dog is expecting to be rewarded with their favourite treat and you offer them kibble, the dog may feel disappointed and aggrieved. Avoiding aversive consequences using R+ training is not difficult if you have a decent understanding of the rudiments of training.
Criticism: Force free training involves a complete avoidance of aversive stimuli which leaves dogs incapable of dealing with difficult situations and makes dogs fearful.
This criticism relies on unfamiliarity of behavioural science to be believed. Force free counter conditioning involves carefully managed exposure to aversive stimuli in the absence of fear. Contrary to the criticism, this consideration for the welfare of the dog cannot result in a more fearful dog. Avoiding fear doesn’t amplify fear. For example, if I was afraid of snakes, I would not become more fearful of them every day I didn’t encounter one. However, if I was forced to closely interact with snakes on a regular basis, I would become distrustful of the person forcing me into the interaction, and lower resilience resulting from frequent fear events would make it more difficult to cope with difficult and unpredictable life events.
Training is never free of risk. All trainers make mistakes, and when we do, it is the dog that pays the price. Intent, minimizing risk, and prioritising the welfare of the dog is the most important consideration for FF trainers. How can one criticise that?
Comments