Post by Aussienot on Sept 2, 2006 19:10:08 GMT -5
Follow on from I have no idea . . .
Willow wrote
Desensitization usually involves presenting low levels of the fear provoking stimulus and working up to the full intensity stimulus. When a dog is already in a full blown fear state, switching from the conditioned emotional response is virtually impossible, so I'm not surprised food didn't work. The consequence has to be more powerful than the conditioned response to change the behavior, and in this scenario food doesn't stand a chance.
The technique you used is counter conditioning. The leader projecting calm confidence and even acting jolly and encouraging play can convince the dog to relax and not invoke the conditioned fear response. Gradually the dog changes context and the fear producing stimulus now produces a neutral response.
;D Yes, Conditioning is just a fancy word for training. Classical is an automatic response to presented stimuli, Operant is a learned response chaining the stimuli, the response and the consequence. The consequence can be can be any experience that the dog finds motivating.
But in the real world of dog training, things are not clear cut between Classical and Operant, and I don't like thinking that much.
And at risk of starting another thread, the reward or consequence can be Positive reinforcement, Positive punishment, Negative Reinforcement or Negative Punishment.
Positive reinforcement is generally considered the most effective strategy for counter conditioning or desensitizing. But it doesn't have to be food, and as you have noted, in the case of an immediate threat, food is of little value.
Willow wrote
The first time we had a storm and I found out Buddy was terrified of thunder I DID try giving him treats/distracting him, but the only thing he was concerned about was the noise around him and he would not take the food.
Desensitization usually involves presenting low levels of the fear provoking stimulus and working up to the full intensity stimulus. When a dog is already in a full blown fear state, switching from the conditioned emotional response is virtually impossible, so I'm not surprised food didn't work. The consequence has to be more powerful than the conditioned response to change the behavior, and in this scenario food doesn't stand a chance.
The technique you used is counter conditioning. The leader projecting calm confidence and even acting jolly and encouraging play can convince the dog to relax and not invoke the conditioned fear response. Gradually the dog changes context and the fear producing stimulus now produces a neutral response.
Since he is now "conditioned" not to react as he once did, but I didn't use food, can it still be called "Classical Conditioning"?
;D Yes, Conditioning is just a fancy word for training. Classical is an automatic response to presented stimuli, Operant is a learned response chaining the stimuli, the response and the consequence. The consequence can be can be any experience that the dog finds motivating.
But in the real world of dog training, things are not clear cut between Classical and Operant, and I don't like thinking that much.
And at risk of starting another thread, the reward or consequence can be Positive reinforcement, Positive punishment, Negative Reinforcement or Negative Punishment.
Positive reinforcement is generally considered the most effective strategy for counter conditioning or desensitizing. But it doesn't have to be food, and as you have noted, in the case of an immediate threat, food is of little value.