# Can rewards reduce desire?



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Interesting topic on one of the obedience lists that I thought would be a good discussion over here. Can rewarding a dog for an activity they already enjoy decrease their enjoyment of it? The theory being if you reward for something they enjoy doing (like retrieving or jumping), they will no longer be doing it because of the intrinsic motivation and begin doing it for the extrinsic reward. They no longer think about how much they enjoy the activity itself, but instead how much they want that reward for completion.

Someone cited a study on school children who were heavily rewarded for reading books. The study found that these children lost their enjoyment of reading, as they were no longer reading because they liked it but because they were trying to earn something for it.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I would say yes. If the dog enjoys the activity than the reward is in getting 'released' to do it.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

I heartily disagree! Purely on the basis that if the behavior is decreasing in frequency...your reward is not a reinforcer.

It's been a while since I read that study with the kids. Do you happen to know the title? I know it's an older paper... 

Here is a more recent paying-kids-for-school study. Karen Pryor puts in her comments on why she thinks it was successful at times and not at others:
http://clickertraining.com/node/2857

Your dog might really like cheese. And he might like retrieving. The cheese might not be a high enough valued item to use as a reinforcer in that setting. Sure it might work for X, Y, and Z behaviors, but in the hierarchy of things, you will likely need to find a different reinforcer to use that is higher in value than retreiving (or be a really clever/skilled trainer to shape the retrieve without it).

Another thing to think about is expectations. One of my training buddies has -really- got me thinking about this. If you are always using X as a reinforcer for a certain exercise/activity, changing up your reinforcer to 'surprise' your dog or to provide a 'higher value' item, you might end up decreasing your behavior. Your dog was expecting something else. Not that he doesn't like what you have...but in this setting, it's not functioning as a reinforcer. A people analogy might be (...haven't used this yet to test out how well it works...!) you expect X show to be on TV. You sit down, you're ready for it.... and something else comes on. You really like this show... but it's not what you expected. 

I've found "intrinsic motivation" to be really hard to determine with animals (and even people!)....to the point where I try to use anything I can as a reinforcer but I'm super careful not to take anything at all for granted.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

But the post didn't say anything about the behavior decreasing. Just the dog having less desire to perform the activity just for the "joy" of the activity.

I guess you would have to look at the results of removing the reward. If a dog enjoys an activity without rewards, and then gets a long history of external rewarding for the behavior, and then the reward is taken away forever, will the dog maintain the same level of enjoyment that it had before the rewards started?


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Is desire visible in quality/fluency/speed of performance? If so, the frequency of the behavior that meets criteria is decreasing. If a behavior is performed but not to criteria, I would say my 'polished behavior' has decreased in frequency. Does that make any sense or only in my head? Ex: You can get 10 beautiful sits. You add in a different reward. You still get 10 sits, half are not tuck sits. The behavior of "tuck sit" has decreased. 

If the 'slower, less animated' behaviors had been reinforced for that period of time... then I doubt the original performance will return. And yes...I realized above I said if the behavior decreases, the reward is not a reinforcer.... I'm thinking it through as much as you are! Maybe we have to look at the level of the reinforcer? And if we're reinforcing what we think we are? Some dogs have a retrieve performance that slows down once food is added in "Oh! Food! Drop the item!" But if from the get-go (or the 'lets repair it!') point, we start with a criteria that is achievable with a high ROR and we work up to a full retrieve, we might inadvertently train a focused, precise, accurate dumbbell retrieve, but it might lack the initial speed of the play retrieve. We may not have been shaping for speed as much as we intended to. [at the moment, speed is a VERY early piece of criteria for just about everything my dogs do]. 

It's a really good question. Do you have any more specific theoretical (or real) examples?


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

If I am practicing retrieve with my girl and I pull the food out *everything* changes. She is no longer hogwild to go get the retrieve item, instead she is bent on getting the food. Whereas without food she wants to hold onto the object, with food present all she wants to do is spit out the dumbbell and get the reward. I think by continuously pairing that strong food reinforcer with the retrieve reinforcer can devalue the retrieve. The retrieve become less 'fun' and instead becomes an outlet to get a much better perceived treat instead.

And this has nothing to do with a behavior decreasing in frequency. It can, in fact, increase. However, the dog's motivation for the behavior shifts. Instead of "I pick up the dumbbell because it is soooo much fun" it is "I pick up the dumbbell because I get food."


----------



## Mighty Casey and Samson's Mom (Jul 16, 2008)

Certainly for something like a retrieve, which for a "retriever" should be reinforcing in itself, I would quickly fade a food reward to a verbal or play reward. I think it depends on what you want to teach and how willing the dog is to learn the new behaviour. Casey LOVES to do the directed jumping exercise in utility and also the glove exercise. He would do it with NO reward...he just LOVES it. I usually reinforce these with play and celebration...saving food for things he loves less.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

(Note! I don't mean to sound argumentive, really! I love love love this sort of technical discussion!)

All we really know is the observable behavior, right? So the "difference in motivation" is something we suspect, from the behavior we see. Can we use what we see to shape what we want/the ideal performance? 

I'm probably around a skewed population of dog training buddies compared to most...so maybe my perception is just way off... 

In your dumbbell example, if she is more interested in the food when it's available, can't we gradually increase our criteria to the point where the task is "Hold teh dumbbell while I fling valued food!" And once you've used the food to shape the aspects of the retrieve we might really want (Solid hold, close front, tight turn, grip by the bit only), we can then go back to putting the whole chain together (the fun toss/chase/fetch), without having to train the pieces we have?

It'd be pretty tricky to shape a retrieve with the dumbbell using the dumbbell retrieve itself as the reinforcer. Maybe we'd have to compromise and use the toss of another toy as the reinforcer for all the parts of the dumbbell chain? I need to find a super crazy fetching enthusiast dog to test this out on...hmmm...


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> (Note! I don't mean to sound argumentive, really! I love love love this sort of technical discussion!)
> 
> All we really know is the observable behavior, right? So the "difference in motivation" is something we suspect, from the behavior we see. Can we use what we see to shape what we want/the ideal performance?
> 
> ...


Lol, you are crazy  Here goes--

Sure, you could definitely teach a dog that they can't have the food until you say so---and they have to hold it while you fling food and such. However, I still say you have shifted the motivation for the behavior. Again, the dog is now holding the object because s/he gets food. How do we know this? Because we are giving the dog food and the behavior is improving. Likewise, we could do the same by making holding it more fun--like a game. How do we know it works? Because the behavior is improving. 

And I betcha if you take a dog and give it a high-value food reward for every single retrieve for a long period of time (oh, say a year) and then try to revert back to the dog retrieving just because he wants to you will see a big difference. His motivation has shifted to food and it has become more valuable than actually getting the object. After a certain number repetitions of throwing a retrieve and not rewarding with food (when you previously did every time for a year) I bet the dog will eventually stop retrieving.

But let's broaden this topic. Can you lessen other rewards with rewards? For example, can you make praise less valuable by giving food too often? I say yes. And if that is so, I think that is argument for rewards reducing desire, as desire/enjoyment is a reward itself.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I love training discussions too, that's why I brought it over here 

Conner was not born a natural retriever(well, he likes nice long marks in the field, but not little close up retrieves). He only enjoys getting his dumbbell because of the history of reward he has for it. If I never rewarded him again for a retrieve I would expect that behavior to deteriorate (although not completely distinguish - I have also enforced the "have to" part of it).

Flip, on the other hand, absolutely loves to retrieve. I'll give him the occasional "good boy," but other then that the only reward he receives for retrieving is an additional retrieve. I believe I could have him retrieve all his life without ever receiving an extra reward for it and he would maintain his current behavior. I'm sure that if I did start giving him a high value reward for retrieving his retrieves would still be great. But when that high value reward disappeared, would he go back to loving to retrieve just to retrieve as much as before?

If I were suddenly offered payment for something that I already enjoyed doing, I'm sure I would be thrilled. But after becoming accustomed to that payment, I would think I would become a little resentful if I were expected to continue it without payment.

Anyway, I don't know the answers to these questions, mostly just thinking out loud.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Mighty Casey's Mom said:


> Certainly for something like a retrieve, which for a "retriever" should be reinforcing in itself, I would quickly fade a food reward to a verbal or play reward. I think it depends on what you want to teach and how willing the dog is to learn the new behaviour. Casey LOVES to do the directed jumping exercise in utility and also the glove exercise. He would do it with NO reward...he just LOVES it. I usually reinforce these with play and celebration...saving food for things he loves less.


I agree. I think the retrieve is a very good example of this too--at least for our breed. I try to avoid food particularly with the retrieve, but I do use it here and there to clean-up the retrieve (too much desire and fun=shaking and mouthing).


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

I was thinking of an obedience retrieve... are we discussing that? Or more of a field setting retrieve or a play retrieve, where unlike the formalized retrieve where the little tiny pieces aren't necessarily as super precise?

When we get into some of these instinct/ "predatory sequence" type behaviors, some high level behavior professionals think using these behaviors might/are primary reinforcers for some individuals as they're related to that predatory sequence. That was a badly worded sentence...I can't easily fix it! 

With a formal retrieve, are there any thoughts on creating all the precise pieces without using food/other reinforcers than the thrown dumbbell? The only things I can think of might comprimse the long-term integrity of the dumbbell retrieve chain.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

I really don't think that rewarding can hurt motivation. I think it is impossible to come to that conclusion because individuals (dogs and people) are so different....you would have to have a large control group of dogs to have a decent study..


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Lucky's mom said:


> I really don't think that rewarding can hurt motivation. I think it is impossible to come to that conclusion because individuals (dogs and people) are so different....you would have to have a large control group of dogs to have a decent study..


But is motivation and desire the same? I would say desire is a form of motivation, but so is food, praise, toys, etc. Can you change a motivating factor? I think you can change what motivates a dog but not necessarily increase/decrease the motivation itself. If that makes sense.

Would love to hear Louisiana weigh in on this one....and what those other trainers are saying 

(ok, time for me to turn the comp off--but I find this an interesting topic)


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

When I use food with Flip involving the dumbbell, it is isolated from the rest of the retrieve. I spent one or two days using food to teach him to take the dumbbell from my hand. I occasionally use food to work on mouthing, but it is isolated from the rest of the retrieve. Fronts are trained and rewarded seperately.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Good point...what are the definitions of motivation and desire in this context? Expected reinforcer? Antecedent? chemical changes in the body? External cues that one of these is possible?

Motivation is rarely if ever a word I use. (...did have a groomer tell me "Wow! That dog is motivating!" as the dog ran across the room... not as in inspiring or whatever... but as in "locomoting" I think I'm just way too confused now!)


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Here is my attempt to define. Thoughts?

Desire: the dog's enjoyment and pursuit of a behavior/activity. It is a form of intrinsic motivation.

Motivation: something that causes a dog to want to do (or avoid) an activity/behavior. Intrinsic motivation comes from the dog, extrinsic motivation comes from outside factors.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

My daughter loves to read. She is rewarded with "big bucks"...money she can spend at school for reading so many books. She's in heaven because she reading, enjoying her books and basically getting free money.

My son has trouble finding time to read. He's rewarded with Big bucks after so many books. I find the big bucks all over the house...unspent and seemingly unimportant.

How do you do a study wtih subjects like this?


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

As a teacher (5th grade, emphasis on reading), I know this study - It's not as simple as that. Basically, if a child already enjoys reading, they will continue to do it (and possibly those high achievers will do more just to "get" more), but they will still enjoy reading as much as ever. However, those children that began NOT enjoying reading will not learn to enjoy reading because of extrinsic motivators. I tend to humanize my pets, but I would imagine dogs are similar to people in that regard. They may do it as a means to an end, but they will most likely try to work the system. For kids that don't enjoy or aren't successful in reading - Making them accountable for something they don't enjoy or can't do is like a punishment, particularly whent there is a visible class chart or public presentation of reward. 

As far as extrinsic motivators go, pretty much everyone is extrinsically motivated to do their "job." I love teaching, I love my students...But without my paycheck, I probably wouldn't do it


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

How much of this question is trying to give dogs human feelings/emotions? Do dogs truly have concept of a "pay check" especially when talking about something they love? I definitely believe that rewards can make something they don't enjoy more enjoyable, but to say that regular rewards will decrease the intrinisic value of something they love? I doubt it some how. 

So the dog drops the dumbell to get the food. Is it because the dog didn't enjoy the retrieve or because the dog likes food better? How can we measure exactly how much enjoyment the dog was feeling while retrieving? I think the dog can become conditioned that it is going to receive a treat after X behavior and that the dog can be "disappointed" (darn, there's another human emotion) if that treat doesn't come when expected or isn't the treat expected, but if they enjoy the action itself does not getting the treat really make them enjoy that action less??? I'm sure a non-self rewarding activity would decrease if the dog didn't get what he was "working for" and in the absence of some other motivation such as punishment for not doing the activity (say a straight front or a down-stay), but for truly self-rewarding behaviors I don't think so.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

wow, what an interesting thread. I need to go back and read it all again, but I wanted to "think out loud" here, too. Stream of consciousness thinking here.
Dogs are not human, and I don't think we can compare studies on humans to what's going on in our dogs. 
I think humans are very capable of valuing intrinsic rewards, and I think that in many instances they are more desirable than extrinsic rewards. There have been tons of studies done that show that, after a certain level, extrinsic rewards become rather meaningless. For example, people who have tons of money aren't any "happier" than people who have plenty for their basic needs and wants. People who have so much food they are throwing it away aren't any "happier" than people who have plenty of food to feed themselves and their families without worry. 
My children went to a private Montessori elementary school until they were in 5th grade, and I taught there and became very familiar with the Montessori philosophy, which is based largely on intrinsic rewards. (BTW, very few people understand it and that's another whole, very long, discussion). But one thing that I know to be VERY true is that children have to value intrinsic rewards from very early childhood (thus all the montessori toddler/preschool programs) for them to value them as they get older. You cannot take a child who has been constantly rewarded with intrinsic rewards for the first 12 years of their life, then take those away and expect them to self-reward. Just doesn't work.
But I digress, because dogs aren't human and I don't think you can treat them the same or expect them to act the same way. I don't think dogs are capable of saying to themselves, "wow, I really did a great job on this and I feel so good about myself!". Maybe others disagree with me.
One thing I haven't seen addressed in this thread is the difference between using food as a lure versus as a reward. I think it makes a huge difference. Food, or toys, when used as a lure cause the dog to expect them and resent not getting them. When given as a reward, after the job is done, I don't think you see that problem as often.
A study was done on rats (the slot machine study) in which there were 3 groups of rats. One group got food every time it hit a lever. Another group NEVER got food for hitting the lever. The third group got food once in a while, in a random pattern, when they hit the lever.
Not surprisingly, the first group of rats got bored and stopped hitting the lever after a while. The second group gave up very quickly. But the third group, they would sit and hit that lever all day. Thus the likening to a slot machine. If the slot machine paid you a few pennies every time, you'd get bored. If it never paid, you'd get bored. But if you never know if THIS time you're going to get something, and it MIGHT be something GREAT, you will play and play and play.
That's my theory of dog training, the slot machine theory. My dogs don't know if THIS is the time they're going to hit the jackpot!
If you doubt it for a minute, think about how hard it is to teach dogs not to jump up on people. If they are allowed to do it even once, it's so rewarding that they will continue to attempt to do it. That's why total consistency is so important in training dogs. 
Ok, I'm rambling now. Time to go back and re-read the thread.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

IMO it's simply because the food was used as a lure, not a reward, and not a "slot machine type" reward.
JMO




IowaGold said:


> So the dog drops the dumbell to get the food. Is it because the dog didn't enjoy the retrieve or because the dog likes food better?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

my thoughts in red.....



RedDogs said:


> Is desire visible in quality/fluency/speed of performance? If so, the frequency of the behavior that meets criteria is decreasing. *If a behavior is performed but not to criteria, I would say my 'polished behavior' has decreased in frequency*. Does that make any sense or only in my head?* Ex: You can get 10 beautiful sits. You add in a different reward. You still get 10 sits, half are not tuck sits. The behavior of "tuck sit" has decreased.*
> 
> But don't you think that's because you're rewarding the sloppy behavior?
> 
> ...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Not sure I agree with this. (again, just thinking out loud here). I think it depends on how the dumbbell was introduced. Mine was introduced as a fun thing, "loaded" like you would a clicker, versus being introduced with a forced technique. 
Retrieving the dumbell is self-rewarding then. The dogs love seeing it come out, and will jump up to try to grab it before going in the ring. 



RedDogs said:


> (Note! I don't mean to sound argumentive, really! I love love love this sort of technical discussion!)
> 
> 
> It'd be pretty tricky to shape a retrieve with the dumbbell using the dumbbell retrieve itself as the reinforcer. Maybe we'd have to compromise and use the toss of another toy as the reinforcer for all the parts of the dumbbell chain? I need to find a super crazy fetching enthusiast dog to test this out on...hmmm...


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> wow, what an interesting thread.
> That's my theory of dog training, the slot machine theory. My dogs don't know if THIS is the time they're going to hit the jackpot!
> That's why total consistency is so important in training dogs.
> .


 Okay after reading and then reading again... I agree with this post the most. It also depends on the dog. I have had two goldens that could not have a more different attitude and enjoyment level. I used to cheerlead my other goldens through everything.. this one if I did any of the stuff he would be hanging from the ceiling...ROFL.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Sit example: Reinforcer A gets 10 tuck sits, Reinforcer B gets half tuck sits. Yes, you are reinforcing incorrect responses, but at the same time you previously just didn't get those, so it wasn't a matter of reinforcing them or not...they were not there. (...and note that I don't know what my point was there.... I should not type stuff late at night!).

Using the dumbbell as the reinforcer, how would you shape a solid hold? I haven't figured that one out!

My understanding is that Bob Bailey says to keep things on a continuous schedule of reinforcement (as long as those responses are meeting your criteria!) for most of the things we do. Like in your rat example, variable schedules can make a behavior resistant to extinction, but we rarely need that. We can however, be selective about what we reinforce.

If I used a variable schedule of reinforcement, my dogs would not know if a non-reinforced response was correct and just not reinforced or incorrect. I always reinforce every correct repetition (again, that meets criteria)... this may be with food, toys, play, or another cue. 

What I didn't think of last night...food and toys may have different chemical level responses from the brain...so you might be able to get different responses due to that... but at the same time, think about heirarchies of reinforcers.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> Not sure I agree with this. (again, just thinking out loud here). I think it depends on how the dumbbell was introduced. Mine was introduced as a fun thing, "loaded" like you would a clicker, versus being introduced with a forced technique.
> Retrieving the dumbell is self-rewarding then. The dogs love seeing it come out, and will jump up to try to grab it before going in the ring.


But if you loaded the dumbbell as part of your training, whatever you did to load it (you said like a clicker - so does that mean with food?) becomes part of the reinforcement history for the behavior chain of the retrieve, so IMO, that means that the dog isn't just retrieving it for the intrinsic reward of retrieving.

Also, when we do a dumbbell retrieve, it's not the same as a natural retrieve. I have a solid play retrieve on Quiz, but it looks different than his real play retrieve. An obedience retrieve requires so much more thinking: don't mouth, carry your head up as you return with the object, sometimes take a jump w/o dropping it, sit straight at front, keeping your head up and not mouthing, don't let go until cued, etc. I think all the external "sh$t" that we add degrades from the intrinsic value of a retrieve. Maybe not to the point that we *have* to reward with food to keep it up, but if we looked at brain chemistry during a real play retrieve and an obedience play retrieve, I'm sure it looks very different.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> wow, what an interesting thread. I need to go back and read it all again, but I wanted to "think out loud" here, too. Stream of consciousness thinking here.
> Dogs are not human, and I don't think we can compare studies on humans to what's going on in our dogs.
> I think humans are very capable of valuing intrinsic rewards, and I think that in many instances they are more desirable than extrinsic rewards. There have been tons of studies done that show that, after a certain level, extrinsic rewards become rather meaningless. For example, people who have tons of money aren't any "happier" than people who have plenty for their basic needs and wants. People who have so much food they are throwing it away aren't any "happier" than people who have plenty of food to feed themselves and their families without worry.
> My children went to a private Montessori elementary school until they were in 5th grade, and I taught there and became very familiar with the Montessori philosophy, which is based largely on intrinsic rewards. (BTW, very few people understand it and that's another whole, very long, discussion). But one thing that I know to be VERY true is that children have to value intrinsic rewards from very early childhood (thus all the montessori toddler/preschool programs) for them to value them as they get older. You cannot take a child who has been constantly rewarded with intrinsic rewards for the first 12 years of their life, then take those away and expect them to self-reward. Just doesn't work.
> ...


Intermittent reinforcement: Strongest way to create and maintain behavior in man or beast!


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Lucky's mom said:


> My daughter loves to read. She is rewarded with "big bucks"...money she can spend at school for reading so many books. She's in heaven because she reading, enjoying her books and basically getting free money.
> 
> My son has trouble finding time to read. He's rewarded with Big bucks after so many books. I find the big bucks all over the house...unspent and seemingly unimportant.
> 
> How do you do a study wtih subjects like this?


You can study it just fine. That tells me that for your daughter, reading is self-motivating and for your son, Big Bucks aren't motivating for him.

WHAT IF -- would your daughter struggle through significantly harder books in order to earn Big Bucks? Would your son sit down an read a skill-appropriate book in order to earn... Hot Wheels cars? Video games?


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Dogs are not human, and I don't think we can compare studies on humans to what's going on in our dogs.


Very true, BUT--you could start and end every thread about dog training and behavior this way. "We are not dogs and are incapable of knowing what goes on in their mind, therefore we don't know. The end." Let's use what we got and extrapolate the best we can or we'll get nowhere 

I really do think you can reduce desire by using too many rewards. I don't think it is always the case--but I think it can happen. I really think if you rewarded a dog with food for a retrieve every single time (could be a crappy retrieve, just the basic get it and bring it back) for a year and then took away the food abruptly you would probably see the retrieve disappear over a short amount of time. Even if the dog previously did it for 'fun' he has now been ingrained to think retrieve=food not retrieve=fun. So when retrieve does not get food anymore--you don't get retrieve anymore.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

GoldenSail said:


> I really do think you can reduce desire by using too many rewards. I don't think it is always the case--but I think it can happen. I really think if you rewarded a dog with food for a retrieve every single time (could be a crappy retrieve, just the basic get it and bring it back) for a year and then took away the food abruptly you would probably see the retrieve disappear over a short amount of time. Even if the dog previously did it for 'fun' he has now been ingrained to think retrieve=food not retrieve=fun. So when retrieve does not get food anymore--you don't get retrieve anymore.


In your example, you're saying FOOD might eventually reduce desire. Food is just *a* reward. What about other rewards? Petting, praise, play, etc.?

By definition, a reward is something that increases the likelihood of a behavior increasing. If a behavior is increasing, how to we measure the desire of the behavior? I think the only way to measure true desire would be looking at brain chemistry. Any observable behavior could be attributed to criteria. (Going back to the retrieve, speed might indicate desire, or it might be a trained criteria.)

Hmmmm....


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

*That's my theory of dog training, the slot machine theory. My dogs don't know if THIS is the time they're going to hit the jackpot!*

But I'm guessing you reward most every correct response *somehow*... No?


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> In your example, you're saying FOOD might eventually reduce desire. Food is just *a* reward. What about other rewards? Petting, praise, play, etc.?
> 
> By definition, a reward is something that increases the likelihood of a behavior increasing. If a behavior is increasing, how to we measure the desire of the behavior? I think the only way to measure true desire would be looking at brain chemistry. Any observable behavior could be attributed to criteria. (Going back to the retrieve, speed might indicate desire, or it might be a trained criteria.)
> 
> Hmmmm....


Interesting I would have to think about that. I think food is such a strong, strong reinforcer. Dogs need food to live, but they don't need praise or toys to do so.

I would think if food, a type of reward, can reduce desire, than other forms of rewards can too. I think the effect though is largely going to be dependent on the dog making it even harder to 'measure.' 

I dunno, maybe sometimes when people slather on praise for their dog they make him more dependable on that praise and less dependent on doing that for fun.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Praise is probably not of much/any value for most dogs.

Toys/play though...is argued by some people I respect very much... can be seen as a primary reinforcer. Play behaviors are generally part of the predatory sequence. And evolutionarily those activities were followed (sometimes!) by food. Strongly linking the two as part of the feeding pattern/sequence of behaviors/whatnot.... but our domestic dogs do not always have enough of that sequence intact to use toys as an effective reinforcer. 

If the praise is a reinforcer (....not for most animals unless it's been trained), and it happens after the behavior occurs... I don't know how that impacts the 'for fun'... Does it matter why the dog does something (other than for curiosity!) if the behavior is reliable and to fluency and meets criteria?

I love stuff like this!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

FlyingQuizini;1133950But I'm guessing you reward most every correct response *somehow*... No?[/QUOTE said:


> I can't see how you would reward every correct respose when most skills are a chain of behaviors. So when working on a recall, I could reward at several different points within that exercise. I might just set up and reward, tell the dog to stay, walk two steps away and reward, reward for immediate response to a recall command, reward for coming all the way in, reward for a nice front, reward for remaining in front, reward the whole chain at the end of the finish, or I might heel off and start a whole new exercise. I think that's what makes the ring so difficult for some dogs. Although they can get a reward of play and praise between exercises, some dogs are still needing reinforcement of pieces of those exercises.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> If the praise is a reinforcer (.*...not for most animals unless it's been trained)*, and it happens after the behavior occurs... I don't know how that impacts the 'for fun'...


K, I have to totally disagree with this. Ok, yeah, some dogs aren't turned on much by praise and you do have to cultivate it more than others. But blimey, if you've seen someone how knows how to use their voice! My grandpa can get Scout to listen to him very, very well just by how he uses his voice and praise. My goodness, a little and deep gruff "Good Girl" when she is laying down and being good gets quite the tail thump. I would venture to say that as training as gone more 'positive' in the sense of cookies and toys, it become less common to see something like that. A dog that thumps his tail happily and being rewarded for a simple, but geniune "Good Dog." I think part of praise value depends on who it is coming from and if it is truly deserved--did it come from someone who praises lavishly for everything or from someone who does so rarely?

And I don't know if it impacts for fun or not....just thinking if food can reduce desire, perhaps others can as well.



RedDogs said:


> Does it matter why the dog does something (other than for curiosity!) if the behavior is reliable and to fluency and meets criteria?


Yes, it does (I think). Otherwise we might as well go out and all buy our e-collars right now, eh? Not to slight anyone that uses one, but I have seen dogs trained on them and they are very precise and get very nice scores in obedience. However, I bet a lot of these dogs (unless other positive reinforcers are paired to overcome it) aren't doing this for fun. And yes, I *think* it matters 

Plus, I think it is nice to have a dog that does something because he wants to--no strings attached. How nice would it be to have your dog do something because he wants to, instead of having to pump out treats or toys or praise?


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I would say with training when learning a new skill you want to reinforce with something 100% until learned. Then you go on variable reinforcement, like a slot machine. If you do it before then, it can be unclear what you want the dog to do because at the same time you are not rewarding correct behavior you are doing the same with incorrect behavior making it a grey area.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

RedDogs said:


> Praise is probably not of much/any value for most dogs.


</p>I'm curious, if you reinforce for every correct repetition, but you don't believe praise is of value to a dog, what would you reinforce with in the ring?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I have to say that Tito is the first dog that I've trained past novice, so I'm working with a scientific N=1 in my study.
He was born with a solid hold. So I don't know the answer to your question and I can see your point.
Also understand your point about a variable schedule of reinforcement, I think I am thinking more of a behavior that is already known, and you want to keep it rather than one that you are just teaching. The OP implied or I read it wrong that rewarding a behavior that was already known would cause the behavior to diminish.
I think.
I'm lovin' this thread.



RedDogs said:


> Using the dumbbell as the reinforcer, how would you shape a solid hold? I haven't figured that one out!
> 
> If I used a variable schedule of reinforcement, my dogs would not know if a non-reinforced response was correct and just not reinforced or incorrect. I always reinforce every correct repetition (again, that meets criteria)... this may be with food, toys, play, or another cue.
> 
> .


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

In a sense, because I do say "yes, good boy". I wasn't really thinking of mild verbal praise when I was talking about the slot machine theory.



FlyingQuizini said:


> *That's my theory of dog training, the slot machine theory. My dogs don't know if THIS is the time they're going to hit the jackpot!*
> 
> But I'm guessing you reward most every correct response *somehow*... No?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

agree totally, for no apparent reason I thought we were talking about a skill that was already learned and then might fade if given rewards. 
Not sure why I thought that?




GoldenSail said:


> I would say with training when learning a new skill you want to reinforce with something 100% until learned. Then you go on variable reinforcement, like a slot machine. If you do it before then, it can be unclear what you want the dog to do because at the same time you are not rewarding correct behavior you are doing the same with incorrect behavior making it a grey area.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> </p>I'm curious, if you reinforce for every correct repetition, but you don't believe praise is of value to a dog, what would you reinforce with in the ring?


1) Work frantically on teaching substitute reinforcers, such as praise, clapping, specific petting, smiles, words. Ken Ramirez says to still follow these with reinforcement 90% of time in training. (and obviously I do what he says... hah... I trust him!) I do 20-30 reps of these every day with my dogs. 
2) You want behavior chains by the time you get in the ring. The cue reinforces the previous behavior. The next cue reinforces that one. It's a beautiful long behavior chain. This goes along with why I stick with continuous reinforcement. If there is no reinforcer (food, play, cue) then the response was incorrect. I'ts always a yes/no.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> In a sense, because I do say "yes, good boy". I wasn't really thinking of mild verbal praise when I was talking about the slot machine theory.


But even the slot machine theory... if pulling the level and the adrenaline rush that comes from fantasizing about winning wasn't reinforcing, we'd likely cease to play the game b/c the jackpot reinforcers are pretty few and far between.

I use the jackpot analogy with my students -- BUT -- I tell them I want them to pay/acknowledge every correct response from their dog; I just need them to start to randomize HOW they pay. I call it intermittent reinforcement, but technically that's incorrect. If we take the jackpot theory to mean we praise mostly and use super great rewards (jackpots) sometimes, what we're really doing is using variable reinforc*ers* on a continuous reinforce*ment* schedule.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

My comments in red.



Loisiana said:


> I can't see how you would reward every correct respose when most skills are a chain of behaviors.
> 
> Exactly. And once I've successful built my chain, I reward every successful completion of the chain. Then, as separate behaviors, I maintain the individual links that construct the chain.
> 
> ...


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

RedDogs said:


> 1) Work frantically on teaching substitute reinforcers, such as praise, clapping, specific petting, smiles, words. Ken Ramirez says to still follow these with reinforcement 90% of time in training. (and obviously I do what he says... hah... I trust him!) I do 20-30 reps of these every day with my dogs.
> 2) You want behavior chains by the time you get in the ring. The cue reinforces the previous behavior. The next cue reinforces that one. It's a beautiful long behavior chain. This goes along with why I stick with continuous reinforcement. If there is no reinforcer (food, play, cue) then the response was incorrect. I'ts always a yes/no.


You must've seen the video of Ken teaching his puppy that clapping is a secondary reinforcer!  I love that video!


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Here's the other important point that Bob Bailey will tell you: Because of their ability to from such strong relationships with us, dogs let us get away with a lot of sloppy training! I think *that's* why sometimes something happens that doesn't make sense in the ways of science, but manages to work out really well.

The other thing Bailey will say is, "I don't know what the animal is thinking; observe the behavior." Keeping that in mind, I'm not sure we can speak to a dog's "desire" increasing or decreasing -- we have to think in terms of observable behavior changes.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

FlyingQuizini said:


> You must've seen the video of Ken teaching his puppy that clapping is a secondary reinforcer!  I love that video!


It's been a few years! But between what he says/does/shows and the talks on strong behavior chains... well, it's why I went out and found a dog to do comp obed with! Beautiful stuff. But the concept of "cues as reinforcers" and "train each piece to fluency" is harder than it is on paper.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

RedDogs said:


> It's been a few years! But between what he says/does/shows and the talks on strong behavior chains... well, it's why I went out and found a dog to do comp obed with! Beautiful stuff. But the concept of "cues as reinforcers" and "train each piece to fluency" is harder than it is on paper.


Not achieving true fluency is, IMO, the #1 reason why people see their dogs struggle in the obedience ring.


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Also, when we do a dumbbell retrieve, it's not the same as a natural retrieve. I have a solid play retrieve on Quiz, but it looks different than his real play retrieve. An obedience retrieve requires so much more thinking: don't mouth, carry your head up as you return with the object, sometimes take a jump w/o dropping it, sit straight at front, keeping your head up and not mouthing, don't let go until cued, etc. I think all the external "sh$t" that we add degrades from the intrinsic value of a retrieve. Maybe not to the point that we *have* to reward with food to keep it up, but if we looked at brain chemistry during a real play retrieve and an obedience play retrieve, I'm sure it looks very different.


 
Such a fascinating thread. I tend to agree with Stephanie in the above post. Although my experience is in my small amount of field training not in obedience. I was lucky with Mira in that she is a natural retriever. At 7 weeks old she would get anything you threw, bring it back and not set it down. She simply loved to retrieve. When we started teaching a more formal retrieve for field everything was still taught in pieces, chained together and rewarded with cookies and playing. I think asking a dog to run out 60-100 yards, through water, ditches, cover changes and return to heel while holding a bird/bumper goes far beyond a natural retrieve. I used rewards to teach Mira all this, and it did not reduce her natural love for retrieving. Although we stopped using treats early on as they seemed meaningless to her (no point in rewarding with treats if the dogs would rather retrieve) I do still use tugging and fun bumpers.




hotel4dogs said:


> That's my theory of dog training, the slot machine theory. My dogs don't know if THIS is the time they're going to hit the jackpot!


 
So very true! Depending on how you look at agility I do this to an extent. Sometimes I reward certain obstacles (table, contacts, weaves) so I would be using a slot machine theory on that. But if you look at an agility course as a long chain, in which the dogs has learned each obstacle is rewarding because it brings them closer to the big reward at the end (a game of tug) then technically they are rewarded EVERY time they do agility. No wonder its so fun! Although I don't think agility really falls under the topic of this thread since it is a totally learned behavior based on a history of positive reinforcement.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> Plus, I think it is nice to have a dog that does something because he wants to--no strings attached. How nice would it be to have your dog do something because he wants to, instead of having to pump out treats or toys or praise?


There are very very few behaviors our dogs offer up that they do "just for fun." As in, we don't even need to be present to make the behaviors happen. Behaviors the dogs do voluntarily if not restrained or prevented...procuring food (and the host of behaviors that relate to this), having sex, protecting self or valuables (guarding/fighting). 

We have to take advantage of these and hold them hostage from the dog if we want the dog to do something we suggest. The most reasonable is of course, controlling when where and what the dog eats, and manipulating him so he does things we want in order to get the food. Right then and there, he is doing something not for fun but because he is made to. He doesn't have a choice right? You hold the food. He's stuck in your house and can't get food without going through you. 

So tell me again why in the heck he would heel or retrieve a dumbell or frankly, do anything you propose he's doing just for fun, if it wasn't you who made it worth his while in the first place to do it. You taught him that verbal praise and physical touch were rewarding. Nothing bad ever happens when you sound Fun Doggy Voice and/or pat him, he is safe at that instant, and they are usually precursors to better stuff the dog actually values, like food or toys or walkies or chase games. Pets and praise are human not canine, they don't pet and praise themselves. Without you conditioning him to verbal and physical praise they would be absolutely 100% meaningless to him. 

Actually proffering up the goods (FOOD or toys/play/retrieve) as the bait rather than an arbitrary human behavior that has a history of good vibes (pets & praise) speeds up the learning curve because you took a shortcut. Rather than hoping the dog is sold on praise and pets, you are actually letting him catch that dangling carrot. Why should you care if he prefers the actual food to your praise and pets? Does it make you feel personally less valuable, because he likes the food more than you? If you are asking him to do completely inane behaviors that do nothing for either of you (what about a go-out helps the relationship between you and your dog?), why does it matter if he does it for a concrete bribe rather than a conditioned, ethereal feelgood moment? You CAN get the same end behaviors without food/toys but it'll take longer.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> There are very very few behaviors our dogs offer up that they do "just for fun." As in, we don't even need to be present to make the behaviors happen. Behaviors the dogs do voluntarily if not restrained or prevented...procuring food (and the host of behaviors that relate to this), having sex, protecting self or valuables (guarding/fighting).


I didn't mean to imply that you can get lots of behaviors by not using outside reinforcers, but I do think it is advantageous to minimize them when you have a dog that already enjoys the activity. 

I spent time with a service dog organization, and I can tell you I have spent time with dogs that basically taught themselves some of the tasks. Example: some of them LOVED tugging open doors and would do this on their own. The dog wanted to run over and tug open that door--not because of treats or toys or praise--but because of the intrinsic value of tugging. And I think capitalizing on the dogs' enjoyment of tugging is better than throwing treats at them to do it. One less thing you have to phase out and one behavior that can self-maintain.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Why should you care if he prefers the actual food to your praise and pets?


Because for me, training is about having a relationship with my dog--not about having my dog perform tasks. And I do believe in willingness to please. I know not everyone does, but I do.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> I didn't mean to imply that you can get lots of behaviors by not using outside reinforcers, but I do think it is advantageous to minimize them when you have a dog that already enjoys the activity.
> 
> I spent time with a service dog organization, and I can tell you I have spent time with dogs that basically taught themselves some of the tasks. Example: some of them LOVED tugging open doors and would do this on their own. The dog wanted to run over and tug open that door--not because of treats or toys or praise--but because of the intrinsic value of tugging. And I think capitalizing on the dogs' enjoyment of tugging is better than throwing treats at them to do it. One less thing you have to phase out and one behavior that can self-maintain.


I see what you're saying. (And when I re-read my previous post, it sounded like I think EVERY task we ask our dogs to do is intrinsically no fun once the dog is asked or made to do it......I don't believe this and totally get what you're saying about many dogs finding the tasks/commands intrinsically enjoyable or profitable, i.e. I have never had to food reward a glove retrieve with Fisher, "he loves it").

However I think we may be dissecting the obvious here. Dogs find certain behaviors self-rewarding, fun, motivating, etc. Well, of course! They are intelligent, sentient creatures. So why should they need us to reward them for doing these behaviors they enjoy? It takes very little encouraging for me to get my dogs to retrieve a dead duck. In fact I'm more of a ball and chain holding them back. I've never once had a cookie in my pocket during field training, a treat is less rewarding than the retrieve. In fact, I use an ecollar to stop my dogs from going after the perceived self-rewarding retrieve at the wrong time or place.

Now back to the question originally posed. Can frequent rewards reduce desire to perform the behavior that earns the reward? Well you may say YES if you isolate a specific behavior. The reward that worked at first may lose its punch and not be rewarding enough any more, it's too predictable. Something else may become more reinforcing for that same behavior. The dog will actively avoid the original reward in order to earn the newer better reward. Given only the option of the old reward, he would rather not do the behavior. It works in a circle, one behavior/reward begetting another. Does this really play out in real life? I guess it could. We call these trainers BORING! LOL

I think these discussions are interesting to a point. Frankly I'm more about action and results so I reach a point where I say, is it working? Who cares as long as you're clearly having fun and getting the results you want


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> Because for me, training is about having a relationship with my dog--not about having my dog perform tasks. And I do believe in willingness to please. I know not everyone does, but I do.



I don't believe dogs want to please their masters just out of the goodness of their hearts. That's a very Walt Disney view of the situation. I believe some dogs are more willing to be manipulated and stay tuned in to the manipulating in order to get something rewarding out of it. Others value the input of others less and will disengage quickly when their interest wains. We call this biddability. It is a genetic trait across species (in general, dogs are much more biddable than a horse, a cow, a bat, a fruitfly), across breeds (the golden retriever has high biddability, the Afghan hound, not so much), and across pedigrees (performance-bred goldens are selected for biddableness).


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> I think these discussions are interesting to a point. Frankly I'm more about action and results so I reach a point where I say, is it working? Who cares as long as you're clearly having fun and getting the results you want


LOL. I love the philosophy, "if it works, I'll use it. If it doesn't, I won't." Why spend too much time over-thinking it? (Ok, because it is interesting....)


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

K9-Design said:


> Others value the input of others less and will disengage quickly when their interest wains. We call this biddability.


Lhasa Apsos are pretty low on biddability  Still planning on getting that UD though! I gave up on the UDX idea. I had wanted to get one because it would be a breed first. Then I found out first hand _why_ it would be a breed first.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Not sure how this fits in with this thread, but I do find it interesting that with each new dog I train, I find myself using less and less food. I'm now on dog 4, and the difference in the amount I'm using with him versus how much I depended on it with my first dog is significant. It's not really a conscious decision I make, just what I find happening. But I suspect that mostly has to do with me learning better how to make myself a bigger reward for the dogs.


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> ]I think these discussions are interesting to a point. Frankly I'm more about action and results so I reach a point where I say, is it working? Who cares as long as you're clearly having fun and getting the results you want


Yup yup!! 

Plus every dog is different anyways! (even among Goldens) my Barley is an obnoxious boy, he loves to talk back, and was told he could not "graduate" from beginning agility because he was to immature (at 3) but in his own way he is very biddable, he gets VERY serious about his “jobs”. Heck he now has a MACH and even though I would not call retrieving his passion, he will after never seeing a bird in his life until 4 years old bring me a duck.


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> Lhasa Apsos are pretty low on biddability  Still planning on getting that UD though! I gave up on the UDX idea. I had wanted to get one because it would be a breed first. Then I found out first hand _why_ it would be a breed first.


I think you can do it! We will be rooting for you!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I think this has been a fascinating thread. Will it change anything I do? Nope. But it's interesting to analyze your own personal training style. I think after doing it for a while we tend to just train by rote rather than thinking about what we are doing and why. At least I know I do.
We are planning to start field training (I *think* I found the trainer I want, who will work with ME and Tito) this coming week. The trainer said we would have to see how his ideas mesh with mine in terms of training the dog, so it will be interesting.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I think the difference is some people approach dog training as a science, and others approach it more as an art. I tend to fall more into the "art" category


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

and then there are those of us who just sort of muddle thru


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

What has worked for me has been intermitten reinforcement to avoid behaviour/result extinction. An animal that is rewarded every single time it produces a desired behaviour will lose interest, whereas if that animal cannot predict when a particular behaviour will be rewarded the response will be to try harder and to remain keen to exhibit that behaviour longer. 
Intermitten behaviour rewarding means, of course, that we miss out on watching extinction induced resurgence, or what is referred to as the "extinction burst," where animals will try a series of remembered rewarded behaviours to elicit the reward. 

Of course, I don't have a golden....yet.:crossfing


----------

