This is from an article on rehabbing dogs with multiple problems, in which the author advises owners to:
“• Develop a positive ‘cult of personality’ with your dog. If she thinks you are an influential rock star, she’ll want to please you. Be confident—even haughty. Stoking her desire to please is the key to good behaviour.
• Distrust the power of treats. Though good for initiating behaviours, they can soon outstrip you as the prime motivating force, and create a pushy cookie monster. Praise, and the cult of personality should become the bulwarks of your authority.”
I don’t know the author from Adam so maybe he really believes that being “haughty” with one’s dog will help stop house-soiling, food-bowl guarding, interest in squirrels and cats, and improve sits, downs, recalls and stays. However my guess is he knows this is ridiculous, probably uses some sort of collar and leash system and has some inkling that without these owners would fall pretty short of rock star influence no matter how “confident” they acted. But to say to people, “yeah, you could motivate effectively with food, but I feel more comfortable using pain and fear” doesn’t have the same evangelical charm.
Or how about this one:
“Don’t let inferior dog training techniques destroy your relationship with your dog.
Why risk it? You could be putting your dog in emotional or physical harm. We’ve seen both the cookie-bribery trainers and the dog trainers who use the super-harsh methods and we don’t agree with either. Using either approach can undermine your relationship with your dog and/or cause physical harm.”
I can connect the dots between super-harsh methods and emotional and physical harm and relationship destruction, but I’m stumped about how cookie-bribery does this. Maybe it’s more tortured logic wherein if the dog finds out how off-the-planet fantastic chicken is, the owner will feel dissed because the dog rarely reacts that way to him. If this is the case, then “the relationship” is weasel-speak for “my narcissism.” It also means, incidentally, that your significant other should get no movies, laughter with friends, football, cake, good books, fun time on fast vehicles or whatever their passions are so that you stand a better chance of ascending to rock star status amid the now more barren fun-o-sphere.
Or this one:
“The food-bribery dog training method is short-term at best and the dog is not taught to respect its human.”
“Respect,” by the way, is code for “fear.” He continues:
“The dog begins biting people as a direct result of owners trying to train their dogs with food, too often resulting in the dog having to be destroyed. Giving an aggressive or dominant dog food to train is dangerous positive reinforcement and can make many dogs even more aggressive and dominant.”
Good heavens, biting people as a direct result of using food to train? Dangerous positive reinforcement? All peer-reviewed research on this actually finds the diametric opposite but I’m betting the positive-reinforcement-is-dangerous crowd doesn’t scour academic journals in an attempt to refine their craft.
This vilifying of food is interesting stuff. If I wanted to spike crime rates in humans, I’d probably not start by offering baked goods to juvie hall kids for desired behaviors. And picture a food-o-phobe telling a zoo trainer that elephants and gibbons should be motivated to comply with veterinary procedures by the keeper cultivating a rock star persona. “Uh, let’s see you try it first…”
Putting aside the *actual* motivators these people use – choke collars, prong collars, electric shock, pinning dogs to the ground and other things designed to intimidate animals into compliance – we could build a continuum of reinforcer chastity:
An item’s proposed location on the continuum is based on: 1) the righteousness (going in) of dogs who find that item motivating, and 2) whether using that item actually corrupts the dog’s goodness. Praise is the uber winner on both counts. Dogs who work for praise are the most noble, worthy and admirable, and the least conniving.
And because of clause #2, the more praise is used on a dog, the purer the dog gets. If it’s not effective, we invoke clause #1: base, attitudinal dog (in need of flagellation – ta-da!).
Door-opening, attention, giving the dog a chew toy and the opportunity to sniff on a walk – so-called “life rewards” – are less virtuous than praise but not as erosive of moral fiber as, say, food. (Eating is apparently divorced from the dog’s “life.”)
Tug is middle-ish but with a bullet. Whereas twenty years ago we all parroted how playing tug was the gateway to anarchy, now most trainers extoll its virtues as a convenient, recyclable motivator and energy-burner for drivey dogs, and one that has the fabulous asset of not being food.
Which brings us to food and the mercenary, profligate dogs who work for it. Notice nobody ever talks derisively about dogs “begging for walks” or “becoming dependent on having the leash removed at the dog park” or the atrocity of “praise bribery.”
The crushing irony is, of course, that for all living dogs, food is insanely powerful, insanely convenient (ever try bringing door-opening along on walks?) and carries the spectacular side effect of the dog liking the training a bit more every time it’s dispensed, liking the trainer and the trainer’s hands a bit more, and liking anything else that is a reasonable predictor of it. This Pavlovian conditioning side effect is squandered on food bowls and 5:00 p.m. I wonder if trainers who hate food feel a pang of jealousy when they are forced – by law – to put some of it down on a regular enough basis to stave off their dogs’ starvation. Or perhaps free food is exempt. I’m not clear on this.
I’ve long thought it is food’s very potency that freaks some people out. It makes dogs look like crackheads, which makes the coercion crowd feel dissed or invisible. A client could get perilously close to an excellent outcome with desirable side-effects using food, but (drum roll) “he wouldn’t be doing it for you, he’d be doing it because of the food.”
Plenty of well-meaning owners, who work hard for a living, are made to pay money for this drivel. And non-aversive trainers actually sometimes kowtow to it by getting all apologetic, rushing to assure owners that this execrable thing, this FOOD, can be phased out once behavior is learned (which would be extinction, which would be bad) or replaced by wholesome, upright motivators such as door-opening, attention, walks and so on.
Of course it’s good practice to employ intermittent schedules to increase resilience to extinction, and of course it’s crafty to diversify the motivator base but some light needs to be shed on this tacit consensus that The Less Food the Better. Do we think owners will fall to pieces if we said:
Yeah, food is an AWESOME motivator with transcendent side effects so let’s figure out how to get you in the habit of having high value food available when you need it so we can train up strong behavior in a wide variety of contexts. He’ll never do it because you’re a rock star, and I’m actually pretty incensed that good people like you have been sold the lie that dogs will do it just for you or just for praise. Trainers who would have you believe this are as dependent on their choking and shocking and pinning and scary stuff as we will be on our food, but that’s how it is with living things. No free lunch.
A student of mine pointed out that it’s actually kind of condescending to assume owners can’t handle this truth. They’re competent adults and won’t tumble into existential obliteration if you level with them about the economics of behavior.
It also got me thinking of an Emperor’s New Clothes challenge where trainers who pour scorn on food are invited to see if they can train up a single behavior on a single green dog, using their haughtiness, desire to please stoking and personality cults but without any choking or pinning or shocking or bullying or yanking on leashes. We all know the result they’d get. Because guess what: dogs aren’t doing it for them either.
So much is so true! I hear the “food is dangerous to your relationship” stuff all the time, and “dogs trained with food end up being put to sleep because they are out of control” a lot, too.
One comment about praise- I do think that with the collar crowd, it is a huge motivator, not as positive reinforcement, but as a signal that the dog is SAFE from being electrocuted, having their airway cut off, whatever, and safety is a huge motivator, trumping positive reinforcement (not that I want my dog to feel he has to work to be safe from ME!)
Your Virtuousness-o-meter is priceless! Fantastic article, a much appreciated read this morning!
I agree completely about how praise can emerge to dogs as a safety signal.
Unless I’m reading it wrong, the food-is-dangerous guy is going a step beyond the positive=permissive myth and saying that positive reinforcement is directly dangerous. Use of food leads directly to aggression. Complete quackery.
No one seems to be pouring scorn on humans sharing food with each other. We bond over nice dinners at favorite restaurants, cooking for each other, making special deserts for a loved one or family. It’s, quite frankly, one of our societies favorite bonding activities.
Why would we want to eschew a powerful bonding experience between our two species? Dogs need food and most LOVE food too. I don’t think they would have been hanging around people in the beginning of their domestication because they found our ‘praise’ so valuable, and I certainly don’t think they would have started hanging around us if we started to use force and intimidation to foster relationships.
I share food with my dogs all the time. They learn to behave around food. They learn that I’m extremely valuable. They learn lots of cool and useful stuff. They learn to like the process of learning. I find it probably the best bonding experience we can have with our dogs. Sharing food.
Thank you, Jean, for a great read!
I never bite the hand that feeds me.
I’d love to see those folks try their “praise” and “rock star” techniques on my Siberian Husky. She’d laugh in their faces and go off to do her thing. Siberians in general, and mine in particular, are extremely food motivated and when asked to learn or change behaviors, couldn’t care less about a human’s rock star attitude or the “good dog” routine. These people must’ve only worked with herding breeds. Or they’re just dumb.
Sheesh. Some people.
They would attempt to wear out her neck with metal hardware. If that didn’t work, they’d upgrade pain implements as needed. All the while attempting to sell you that the actual motivator is this praise/hero-worship thing. It’s creepy stuff that, amazingly, passes by the general public largely unexamined.
Have you written anything specifically on prong collars? I’m on the board of a teeny-tiny rescue in Chicago, and we are firmly on board with R+ training, but unfortunately it seems the major Chicagoland rescues are not – I’d love to have some literature to pass on to their leaders. A lot of the AVSAB and APDT stuff is sort of cop-out “prong collars should not be used as a first treatment type stuff” which I think just reinforces the idea that they are useful tools for “difficult” dogs.
I’ll send you what I have.
In the airport, as we were going through immigration, agriculture sniffing dog, a super cute beagle, after finding someone’s bag with not allowed fruits and veggies was rewarded with “good boy” and a treat by the security guard.
I think if this is what the dog that caliber is trained with, it should be enough to train most dog to obey simple commands.
And good point about basically substituting food with safety from harm for your dog. Very awesome article.
To paraphrase Susan Garrett (from a seminar about 5 years ago): If you have a choice, would you continue working if you did not get a paycheck? The reward (food) is your dog’s paycheck.
Interestingly I know some real rock stars. Famous ones. Funnily enough, they needed me to help them train their dogs. I’m guessing they just don’t have what it takes in terms of persona, but we soon fixed that with a bit of chicken.
Looking forward to the interview Jean!
It’s ironic that people love to be lazy (i.e., don’t train their dogs or socialize them, never walk them, don’t educate themselves on dog behavior) and then refuse to use one of the easiest training tools at there disposal: FOOD. Instead they waste time walking around looking grim and yanking on there dogs necks and running through doorways to ensure there dog doesn’t get there first (I have actually seen an owner SHOVE the dog out of the way and race through first….the dog looked perplexed.
My dog is polite, eager to train and learn new things (bright eyed, perks up when she see’s her clicker), and rehabed from very dog reactive to being able to pass by other dogs for a click/treat. She does all these things because of the prospect of reward..praise is not high on her list…but food and tug are…she does not give a crap if its pleasing me or not. AND NEITHER DO I.Its a win-win for both of us..I have a dog performing/offering desired behavior (pleasing me) and she gets her choice reward (food or play or the prospect of potentially getting either).
Also, there is a training method that is UNFORTUNATELY spreading rapidly across Canada founded by Brad Pattison (and then people take a course from him and lead classes themselves) based on the notion that food=evil and that dogs should be doing something FOR YOU rather than food. It’s scary stuff.
Lots of Millan fans can’t stand Brad either. Which is saying something!
What the critics of rewards fail to explain (as do the advocates of aversion) is the research that leads to their pronouncements. Anecdotal information is just that–anecdotal.
Then there are those in the “it is obvious” camp. “It must be”, “one can easily see” etc. Heck, it was once obvious, quite clearly visible, that the sun revolved around the earth.
Behavior is measurable. So…where’s the data?
Thanks again for reminding me why I became a dog trainer.
Love the Virtuousness-o-meter. You’re the best, Jean!!!
Ha! I actually ***give*** aggressive dogs food-treats during B-Mod, so it’s amazing that I have not yet been killed and partially-consumed by some food-crazed canine monster. Living dangerously – That’s me!
Seriously, what a collection of antiquated rubbish; not all rewards need be food, but for speed of delivery, rapid rate of reinforcement, and portion control, FOOD ROCKS.
For those who think food rewards = dog-blimp, I cut Wellness chips into 9 to 12 pieces per chip with scissors. People often say, “my dog won’t work for food…”, but are then stunned to see their 90# Rott practically do handsprings for a treat so small it gets lost if I drop it on wall-to-wall.
– Terry Pride, APDT-Aus, APDT#1827, CVA, TDF
“Dogs R dogs, wolves R wolves, & primates R us.”
~~~~~ tmp, Sept-2007
Thank you for a really good read.
I’m a little floored by the idea that dogs should not only view “loyalty” the way humans do, but be better at it than 99.9% of humans in most situations. I don’t show up at work every day because my boss is a rock star, I do it because I get paid. Heck, even with family members and spouses, where there’s a huge level of personal loyalty, there still has to be give and take. You don’t see marital counselors argue that I’m destroying my relationship with my husband if I say, “Hey, I’ll make breakfast if you feed the dog and cats.”
There are actually plenty of things my dog will do without food rewards. She will follow me or my husband pretty much wherever, and we’ve never offered her treats for getting into the car on command. But I’m pretty sure she’s not doing this because either of us has a “haughty, I’m so awesome” personality. If she likes to be around us, it’s largely because she sees us as safe and as a source of good things—food being one of them. And the car thing has nothing to do with us–car rides are fun and often lead to Petco or the dog park.
My dog does seem to see praise as rewarding, but who knows if that’s because she’s eager to please, because she finds being around happy people pleasant, or because she associates praise with treats and scritches. I don’t know, or really care, if she’s responding out of a sense of loyalty to me or if she’s hoping there’s chicken in it for her.
I think part of the reason that the cult of personality thing is so attractive is that people often get dogs to feel loved, and they want to know that their dog actually likes them. There’s a lot of ego and emotional security wrapped up in that. But even in human relationships, we like people who are nice to us, and who we have fun with. If you’re nice to the dog and give them the chance to have fun with you, odds are pretty good that they’ll like you.
Real rock stars have to back up all that ego and cult of personality with actual talent (or at least looks, in the case of some pop stars). If you want to be a rock star to your dog, you have to back it up with something they want, and food is great for that.
Absolutely brilliant, funny and TRUE!
How did we ever survive without dog trainers, who were nowhere in sight when I was a kid. I wonder how did we ever manage to train dogs then??
Oh, yeah, FOOD.
“Praise is the uber winner on both counts. Dogs who work for praise are the most noble, worthy and admirable, and the least conniving.
And because of clause #2, the more praise is used on a dog, the purer the dog gets. If it’s not effective, we invoke clause #1: base, attitudinal dog (in need of flagellation – ta-da!). ”
I love this. It’s like Calvinist dog training!
“It also got me thinking of an Emperor’s New Clothes challenge where trainers who pour scorn on food are invited to see if they can train up a single behavior on a single green dog, using their haughtiness, desire to please stoking and personality cults but without any choking or pinning or shocking or bullying or yanking on leashes. We all know the result they’d get. ”
Haha. I’ve actually thrown this gauntlet several times amidst the hubbub of the cruel and rage-full internets and not one single person besides myself has responded to the challenge. Not 1! This is actually how I shut these unruly mobs down nowadays as the overwhelming response is the glorious vacuum of silence. I can only hope that the more reasonable, less entrenched, of the lot will notice more what their brethren do not, and apparently cannot, show than what they type. I think it says quite a lot that after all the chest thumping and poo-pooing of anything resembling anything other than explanatory fictions and heart-quickening mythology, proponents of the yank, slap and zap, and “no soup for you!” cannot train a dog to do anything that is not a close derivative of sit, down, stay, jump, heel or retrieve.