Positive vs Negative Reinforcement

Using carefully managed negative reinforcement as a tool to shape your dog and protect them from catastrophic dangers

There seems to be room for confusion in the positive vs negative reinforcement arena. As always with a societal pendulum swing people get caught up in the extremes, imagining that if negative reinforcement is a bad and dated methodology, then positive reinforcement is strictly the way to go.

Positive reinforcement to me is the base at which we should operate as good dog owners. As often as possible we should be utilizing methods which empower and support our canine friends as they explore and become accustomed to the world, but negative reinforcement has its place as well.

I discovered early on with Ellie that there were thresholds she crossed which closed off my ability to “reason with her.” These thresholds required me to either forcibly remove her from situations or use more aggressive behavior to regain her focus. I never hit her, but a stern voice and a strong grip can go a long way in making them realize you mean business. I also had success with swats from a magazine which made a loud slapping noise that would catch her attention. The point is that you are trying to find a sweet spot between too little intervention and too much aggression. And this sort of action needs to be practiced so that when you do really get frustrated you set boundaries on how aggressive you’re willing to go. It’s similar to the advice that expressing your anger is healthy and that bottling it up isn’t. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to express negative reinforcement in a safe, painless, but effective manner.

Additionally, you could treat negative reinforcement training as tool in your arsenal. Rather than stumbling upon it during legitimate frustration, in which you risk being overly aggressive, you could simply engage it as a tool you don’t want to use, but which provides some effective means for shaping your dogs behavior. Set limits, start low and work up, experiment at the right moments until you and your dog understand what boundaries are set and what “NO” really means. Just to clarify though, I’m not suggesting using negative reinforcement needlessly, I’m saying prepare your mind for the moment when it needs to be used so opportunities don’t pass by. You probably already do this but it’s unmanaged and hasn’t been reflected on.

I would also argue from an abstract theoretical view that negative reinforcement defines boundaries that would otherwise not exist. If you have a dog who’s never experienced an aversive response, they may never understand what “NO” really means. Ellie responds immediately and effectively on the rare occasions I raise my voice or display certain body language. This is because she understands the degree to which aversive action can occur if her behavior continues. She’s never experienced the maximum, but she experienced a degree and that’s the important point to walk away with. Too much aggression and your dog will fear you, too little and their memories won’t retrieve anything relevant. This can be dangerous because the world can kill them. I’d argue that the dog who’s experienced aversive action will more likely register that a potentially deadly behavior should cease immediately.

I also don’t consider it a strategically realistic approach to dog training for the average person either. Strict positive reinforcement would require a vast understanding of dog psychology to employ because you would need to accurately predict the future results of your methods. Negative reinforcement has the uncanny ability of quickly modifying bad behavior that would otherwise require a radical rethinking about how to resolve it with only a positive approach. Most dog owners don’t seem nearly capable of pulling that off not to mention the amount of time, patience, and energy it would take.

So a more accurate description of proper positive and negative reinforcement training in my opinion should be “mixed reinforcement.” I think the terms themselves create ambiguity for the average dog owner. Most people I observe aren’t intuitive enough to understand that just because something is labeled a certain way, or expressed as a progressive and positive direction, doesn’t mean it is a blanket solution for all circumstances. Although we do need to be equally careful about supporting negative reinforcement for basically the same reason. But I fear that people may begin to completely disregard negative reinforcement training and thus never reflect on the utility it could provide you and your dog. This is a problem because anytime we lose the ability to ask questions or explore new information we’ve lost some level of critical thinking.

Lastly, as negative reinforcement becomes less socially acceptable, I fear that we lose the ability to properly scrutinize one another as it leaves the public sphere. I’ve seen dog owners who thought they were alone use negative reinforcement, occasionally to levels I considered too aversive, without any public scrutiny. And I fear even more what goes on behind closed doors in most households. But if we were more open to discussing the topic we could help set limits and share ideas about methods that minimize pain and fear, but maximize effectiveness.