Negative Reinforcement

Ok the "Negative Reinforcement" question, is it ethical? Is it ok to use? How much is ok? Is it ok in this context? What if we didn't mean it?! Let's take a look at the who, what, when, where, why, and how's of R-.

Now that people are learning behavioral science there is a whole lot of confusion with that's "good" or "bad" or ok and not ok to use. Really, let's start by being honest. If you and your horse are happy, healthy, and progressing, don't judge by someone else's criteria. Do what makes you and your horse happy and keeps communication easy and everyone feeling safe.

But let's get analytical here about R-, especially for people out there teaching how to train, we need to really look at this quadrants and break it down to determine it's ethical use. The quadrant is massive, it can span from mild discomfort to straight out abuse. So where's the line?

First let's look at the definition of R-, "The removal of an aversive stimulus which results in the increase of frequency of a behavior". That's alot of words. It means, something the horse dislikes is taken away when they perform the correct behavior. We know the stimulus must be aversive (something the horse dislikes) because it's removal was reinforcing. If we removed a novel/neutral stimulus it would have no result. If we removed an appetitive (something they enjoy) we would have Negative Punishment (the reduction of a behavior, not the increase).

In training we use R- in two ways. To train a behavior. We use an aversive stimulus (it can be as mild as an irritating fly or as severe as actual pain). We add this stimulus until the horse performs the correct behavior (or a close approximation) and we remove this stimulus when the horse does the behavior we want. The addition of the aversive stimulates the behavior, the removal reinforces the behavior.

We can also use it in desensitizing/counter conditioning. We add the aversive stimulus and when the horse responds to it in a way we like (signs that they are becoming less afraid) we remove it. It's important to remember that a behavior is being reinforced, this isn't just classical conditioning, we are training the horse to "look less afraid".

The problem with both of these begins with the first thing WE do, "add an aversive". R- relies on an aversive to work. So if we want to use it as a tool, we must first add the aversive in order to remove it when we desire. But remember classical conditioning is always happening in the background, so whatever you bring to your horse is actually being classically conditioned into your relationship. So if you come bearing aversives, your relationship is a predictor of aversives. This can get "iffy".

So let's break this down a step further, shall we?

Let's start with what I'd consider the mildest form of R-. Something aversive that is NOT you, but under your control, is in the equation. So perhaps you're working with your horse and they are swarmed by annoying flies. You apply fly spray, the horse standing quietly for fly spray resulted in the R- of the flies being removed. Lovely. Is this unkind? Of course not! You listened to your horse and helped solve a problem for them, good job! See the key here was that YOU didn't add the aversive, you only removed it.

Next step up, you accidentally add an aversive. You're doing you're training, let's say teaching them to push a ball, and oops you got too wild with it, the horse got nervous. You recognize these signs of concern quickly and remove the aversive. You reinforced their small, subtle signs of fear, teaching them, you will listen when they are afraid you'll see the small signs - so they don't need to become big signs. It's important to remember here that we can't train fear. Reinforcing behavioral signs of fear does not teach a horse to be more afraid, it teaches a horse that we see how they're feeling and we take that seriously.

Another level up, you're counter conditioning, let's say touch acceptance for an easy one. You're touching them and treating and things are going really well, but then you swipe your hand an inch further and the horse says "NO!" woops! You added an aversive!! Is that ok? That's going to depend on you and your horse and your shared history. If the horse is pessimistic and has a small history with you, this may be enough for them to sign out of the game and not want to come back. For other horses this may be helpful, you gently pushed a limit and expanded their comfort zone. In both cases a prompt removal of the aversive at the horse's first sign of "no" will do the same as mentioned above, show the horse that they can communicate quietly, they don't need to escalate to make us listen (to biting, kicking, ear pinning, ect...)

Is it ok to intentionally push a limit? Well, that's the essence of Counter Conditioning. We take something the horse finds aversive and pair it with something appetitive often enough that the horse changes their mind about the aversive. But this too means we have to start where it's (very mildly) aversive. We slowly, carefully, gently, push limits to expand the horse's comfort zone. But remember we added and aversive, then we add an appetitive, the aversive doesn't remain, we also remove that. So it's R+ and R- for the horse tolerating the aversive stimulus. Let's say we're doing touch acceptance, the horse is ok with their neck being touched and this time you swipe your hand over their shoulder, faster than they could react to it the stimulus was removed and an appetitive is being added. The behavior of standing and tolerating was reinforced both negatively (removal) and positively (addition)

Ok let's go another step up. You want your horse to do a behavior and you've tried with R+ but you can't figure out how to get them to do it the way you want. So you use a mild aversive stimulus to stimulate the behavior. You tap, tickle, wiggly, or prod, whatever you want the horse to do to get the behavior you want. Then when they do the correct behavior you remove the aversive and add an appetitive. Well, this is a complete lack of creativity. If you're creative enough there's no behavior you can't shape without using aversives. However, is this cruel or evil? That will depend entirely on your horse. Some horses have a high tolerance for mild aversives and some will even appreciate the clarity of the communication "Oh you want me to do something with my foot!" Especially if the trainer isn't good at using positive tools yet that help the horse have that same level of clarity without aversives. This clarity means faster and more predictable positive reinforcement, so a little aversive isn't that much to deal with. But this will depend highly on the horse. A horse with a trauma history or a sensitive, emotional horse may find any addition of an aversive as something they're just not prepared to deal with. In which case, this horse will be a great teacher to help you become more fluent in positive training.

Now how about if you want your horse to do a behavior, you know how to teach with R+ but the horse just isn't motivated enough to do it with R+ alone? You want to teach your horse to do a high energy behavior like fly over a jump, but your pudgey cob would rather walk around it. Do we add some aversives to up the enthusiasm? This will again depend on the horse. Some horses would find that so offensive they would be out of the game. Others may tolerate it for a while, but begin being reluctant to come play with you (uh oh you're poisoning your training and your relationship!). Others may find that jumping is actually fun once you get into it. Either way, we have tools with R+ to fix this problem, jumping right to R- is risky. It would also require more R- tools like working on a lunge line or in a shoot system so the horse doesn't just leave. Can it work? absolutely! Is it worth the risk? Just to get a bit more... Not really, up your R+ training game, don't up your aversives.

We also have to consider if a horse doesn't want to do a behavior for R+, why might that be? Your fat cob sure isn't going to turn down a treat for nothing. The effort must outweigh the reward here, is it just because they're out of shape and you're asking for too much too fast? Or is there a pain issue?

If you train a behavior with R+ and the horse doesn't do it, your first response should never be to just add an aversive. Your first response should be to talk to a vet or body worker. What horse is not going to want that treat? There's got to be a reason they're not doing what you asked.

Then we go up a final step, we just want to use R- because we know it, it's easier for us, and adding treats is annoying. Well, ok, that's on you, but think about the way this is conditioning your relationship. Think about how this is influencing the way your horse feels, their quality of life, their feelings for their job... If the only thing they're getting is the addition and removal of aversives, everything is being conditioned aversively.