Read the study I linked to earlier. They have learned how to look guilty for the sake of social success, not because they can read your mind. The rest is a Pavlovian response.
Evidence in poop, or bits of the item in fur.
It’s a rare occurrence nowadays, though. Older dogs are great.
The linked study on dogs guilty looks doesn’t really prove anything in my eyes, many human children respond the same way. In fact, the article stated
If it was just a Pavlovian response, the dog’s guilt should have no bearing on the results. The fact that dogs “look more guilty” when they were, in fact, not guilty actually seems to imply the dog does remember a past event, or in their case, non-event.
Why does my dog always hide when I come home to find a mess of chewed up something or other, but excitedly greet me at the door on any other occasion? (I never hit my dog, but when she’s really bad I do yell a lot) . If she’s not at the door, I know she was bad, and she has no cues from me to work from, only her knowledge that she knows she was bad, and knows I will yell, and is hiding in shame/fear/whatever. While it’s silly for people to believe their dogs experience all human emotions in a human way, I think it is incorrect to think the opposite extreme. I can’t see why a dogs emotional experience wouldn’t lie in a middle ground for other emotions besides just plain fear. (I recall a thread from a while ago where people argued that a dog is incapable of feeling joy)
i recall a pet advice show on the radio that at least for the purpose of punishment that the cause and effect linkage was very short. Just a wild guess recall that it was no more than a few seconds, so like you had to be right next to the dog.
The article notes that the study doesn’t show that dogs don’t feel guilt, it just shows that dogs’ behavior that appears to humans to be a ‘guilty look’ is actually body language that dogs use to show submission to an alpha dog, and doesn’t necessarily imply that they feel guilty for doing something.
In the case of your dog, it’s possible that she does feel guilty, but it’s also possible that she doesn’t connect her behavior with you exhibiting alpha aggression, just the end results of her behavior with you exhibiting alpha aggression. E.g., if some invisible pink unicorn came into your house and ripped up a pair of your shoes, your dog would exhibit just as much “guilty” behavior as if she had chewed them up herself.
I recall the story of someone using the “put their nose in it” method of training with the result that the dog defacated in the house and then, when the yelling started, obediently went over and stuck its own nose in it.
A lot of humans think that dogs are like us, only not as smart. They’re not. They’re completely different animals who work on a different level. People who insist on treating and training their dogs like people aren’t doing them any favors.
If your dog is pulling your arm out like that, he’s running in front of you, which means he thinks he’s in charge. From what I know about dogs, they should **always **be walking with you in the “at heel” position–you should never let them take the lead, because in dog-world, taking the lead means you’re in charge.
Well, he isn’t now, because we worked with the collar and such. But the point is, without correction, using only positive feedback, how do you “never let them take the lead”? The dog is literally dragging you down the street. Correction works just fine.
ETA - He came like that, by the way.
This is what the crux of my OP boils down to. Pretty much every supposedly knowledgable source I’ve read has said this. But what evidence have they got to back it up.
As witnessed by this this thread, lots of people (and a multi-million dollar training industry) seem to think they understand how dogs brains works. But what evidence do they have to back it up ? Actual scientific controlled studies, not anecdotes.
There was a study conducted recently that showed that dogs were able to form and understand simple concepts. The animal was shown different pictures of other dogs and landscapes. They were able to form the concept of dog, and correctly indicated the dog picture each time, regardless if it was a picture they had already seen, or a new one of a dog. All of this indicated that most dogs have a mental equivalency to that of a toddler pre “verbal explosion”. Since they are certainly able to show a wide range of emotions, and learn the concept of good and bad behaviours; I see no reason to indicate that dogs cannot learn the same. Most toddlers though, also do not have good time/memory skills and need to be corrected during the offending episode to properly make the connections.
We know that dogs experience certain complex emotions such as boredom and sorrow. Many are able to recognize themselves in mirrors. I’ve seen no evidence that excludes them from experiencing guilt at least in the short term.
But I think you could easily reverse the question and come up the same answer.
I told my dog “don’t go on the bed.” He goes on the bed, I take the squirt gun out, squirt him and say “NO.”
Mr Dog gets the idea. And the behavour stops. This is negative but it works, and so what? Was this dog scarred for life? No. Since the behaviour is a simple question of yes/no, there is no middle ground it works.
When the answer is NO GOING ON THE BED, there’s no middle ground. How would you have gotten a result with a positive that would’ve been better?
A little water, he learned not to do that, he wasn’t afraid of water, what’s the real issue?
This is basically the same debate people assign to everything, including raising the kids.
It reminds me of all these kids I went to high school with who’d get picked on. No one picked on me, well not more than once, 'cause they got a quick pop in the mouth.
I remember having the same debate with my mum “Mark you can’t go around solving all your problems with violence.” As I told her “I’m not trying to solve ALL my problems, just the ones that require a pop in the mouth to enforce the point.”
I almost never got picked on, because the few who tried it, got a pop in the mouth, and word got around quickly, pick on Mark get a few of your teeth loosened. So by in large I was left alone.
So I don’t buy any argument that says negative = bad. True mabye you can get results with positive, but too often they ignore the success of the negative.
I mean suppose your doggie isn’t toliet trained. Is spending two months of work using positive reinforcement plus $2,000 to replace your rug, better than a few squirts with some water and having him learn in two day? A dog like that may wind up in the pound, out of frustration and “put to sleep.”
Now I’m not saying you should be mean or cruel to any animal or any person, I’m just saying, you simply cannot write off negative techniques as effective.
Indeed the most effective way of changing human behaviour is through ostracism. Humans seeme to hard wired to be very irritated when they are purposely ignored or sent to conventry, which is a very negative but non-violent form of behaviour correction.
I’m not after evidence of such esoteric emotions (we could argue all day about the experimental difference between demonstrating a dog “feeling sorrow and guilt” and “remembering what happened the last time they got caught crapping on the rug”). And I don’t think anyone would argue that lack of stimulation is clearly a stressor for dogs, particular ones who genertically programmed to require alot of it, thats about as close to the human emotion of boredom as you are going to get.
All I was after is a properly put together scientific study of whether dogs can in fact associate negative consquences of an earlier event with the event itself, and adjust their behaviour appropriately. Its not a terribly difficult thing to show one way or another (though I’d be interested seeing the results for different breeds of dogs, at different ages).
Is that “punishment” or is that “telling him what not to do”? It seems like you made a distinction that it’s not punishment, so we are in agreement.
Dogs often are scarred for life by the average human’s idea of appropriate punishment. Maybe you did it in a way that won’t scar your dog; maybe you show enough restraint and good judgment to stop there and not to make any mistakes with punishment – ever – while you’re tired or you’ve been drinking or whatever. Good for you. I’m STILL not going to recommend the (unneccessary) punishment to the average reader, any more than I would let William Tell’s experience cause me to start advocating shooting at children with crossbows.
It didn’t take two months. Simone understood within a few days and was very very good about it in less than two weeks. And that was with a completely uneducated feral pit bull.
Once again, the only advantages of negative reinforcement are that it’s easier to think of if you don’t want to do any actual reading in dog training – and, of course, some people find it more to their liking to be casually cruel.
You seem to be misapprehending where the burden of proof lies here. The assumption would be that punishing a dog afterwards does nothing, and the hypothesis that it actually does something requires evidence.
It was a talk show on radio that had an animal behaviorist as a periodic guest. The guest has been training for decades, has a PhD in Zoology and is a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist. The question was asked a number of times the guest was on. I recall that as the repeated answer, though if it was 3, 10 or more seconds I can’t positively recall, though something like 3 to 5 seconds seems what I would venture if pressed. It seemed like you would not have time to make it across the lawn or house and maybe the room. Even if you bounded across the room in short enough time the last thing the dog would remember was you bounding and not what it had just done.
The guest often discussed scientific studies and gave citations if it applied to a call in question. If any of the times the question was answered a citation was given I don’t remember it.
Pain punishment rarely worked on dogs also, the guest said, both because of the short time span to apply it but the dog would react to you and not the behavior. The guest said that better is distraction, watch for a prebehavior action and distract with a meat food treat. After a few dozen times the dog learns to not giving in to that behavior urge leads to something good, even after the actual training reward stops. For something like showing that they want to get let out, watch them for the urge, lead them to the door and reward them at the door, after that is trained then maybe reward after outside but I don’t recall that point.
DA ICON’s anecdote:
I come home. My dog, like usual, bounces around like an idiot…happy to see me.
I go further in the house and find tootsie rolls all over the floor (Shih-Tzu, FYI). I point to them and ask ‘What is this?’
He slinks away, hoping to find a spot that will block out the sounds of my yelling ‘BAD DOGGY!’
He knows what he did. I (for shits and giggles) have also pointed to toys he left out and asked ‘What is this?’ He kind of looks scared for a minute, and then confused? He realizes leaving toys out is not a punishable offence in my household, so he is not sure how to react.
Well, you see, you have not trained him to not dump the candy, you have trained him to look guilty when you are angry at him. And it works as you forgive him, since he has looked guilty just as you trained him to do. But he has no idea of what you are angry about.
In General, punishing a dog (or a cat) does no good. What you need to do is admonish him. My dad raised huskies and he showed me what to do- when you catch the dog in the act, you grab him by the ruff and shake him (this is a husky, you might not shake a less durable dog), and raise your voice, sounding very angry (BAD DOG!). In other words, you do what the Alpha dogs do. Sometimes when the dog was displaying anger, Dad who grab the dog around the muzzle. But never any hitting.
Hitting a dog does nothing to aid in training (Ok, some think a light swat to get thei attention is OK, but not for punishment). Your dog (well, 99% of dogs) wants to please you, the Alpha. Just let him know you are not pleased. And,make very sure, you are the Alpha. This is important in smaller dogs too, many of whom are ruined as their displays of aggression are met with “Ah, isn’t that cuuuute?”. Yes, he’s more or less harmless, but if you- the bringer of food, etc- are not the Alpha, the dog gets confused.
Wow, do I disagree! I am driving to work (with my dog in the car) when I am involved in an accident. I exit the vehicle with my dog, but am unable to retrieve a leash. I am not wearing a belt. In that situation, I know I can put my dog in a sit/stay and she will not budge. If the police arrive at the scene and they have a dog, I know that my dog will sit/stay even with the temptation of another dog around.
Training a dog to act predictably and obediently in any situation?
That’s the responsible thing to do. That’s what would make a good dog owner.
:smack:
Of course, people never do this. :dubious:
I can’t cite any controlled studies on the matter questioned in the OP. Many people who train dogs professionally note that punishment substantially after the fact doesn’t work to correct the bad behavior, but if they’re caught in the act and admonished, it does. Good enough for me. And I’ve certainly seen enough of the slinking around behavior correlated with some nefarious act, to conclude that the dog feels guilt or a very close cousin to it, even if “guilt” equates more to “uh-oh, I’m gonna get the “ba-aaad dog” routine.”
I find the contention that “dogs possess no human emotions/conscience/feelings and are just a set of conditioned responses” viewpoint just as weird and off-base as the idea that dogs are just like us. Is it that threatening that a “lower animal” can resemble us in some ways?
Not at all, scientifically speaking the hypothesis is that dogs LACK the cognitive function to connect negative consequences with events that happened in the past, and adjust their behavior appropriately. An awful lot of people bandy this hypothesis about like it was a fact, but I want see an experiment that tested this hypothesis over the counter-hypothesis (that dogs can in fact associate a negative consequence with the event that caused it, even if that event happen some time ago).
This is science, not law, neither hypothesis has the “benefit of the doubt” and both should be considered just a hypothesis until controlled experimental evidence favours one over the other.
Yup, that’s the problem. Whoever had him before didn’t train him right.