Veterinary behaviorist Dr. Christopher Pachel joins the podcast to discuss the contentious debate over punishment in animal training. On this week’s episode of the Cone of Shame Veterinary Podcast, Dr. Andy Roark and Dr. Pachel dive into the controversy surrounding positive reinforcement versus aversive methods. Dr. Pachel breaks down the science behind training techniques, discussing the immediacy, consistency, and efficacy of animal training and why balanced training might not be the best approach. They explore the psychological impacts on pets and the real-world application of these methods. This episode is packed with insights and practical advice for anyone involved in animal training. Let’s get into it!
You can also listen to this episode on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, Soundcloud, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts!
LINKS
Dr. Chris Pachel: www.drpachel.com
Instinct Dog Behavior & Training: https://www.instinctdogtraining.com/
Dr. Andy Roark Exam Room Communication Tool Box Team Training Course: https://drandyroark.com/on-demand-staff-training/
Dr. Andy Roark Charming the Angry Client Team Training Course: https://drandyroark.com/charming-the-angry-client/
Dr. Andy Roark Swag: drandyroark.com/shop
All Links: linktr.ee/DrAndyRoark
ABOUT OUR GUEST
Dr. Chris Pachel is a board-certified veterinary behaviorist and is the owner and lead clinician at the Animal Behavior Clinic in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Pachel lectures extensively worldwide, teaches courses at multiple veterinary schools in the United States, and has authored numerous articles and book chapters for veterinarians and pet owners. He is a sought-after expert witness for legal cases and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board for dvm360. He is also a Vice-president of Veterinary Behavior for Instinct Dog Behavior and Training, as well as co-owner of Instinct Portland, which opened in the fall of 2020.
EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
Dr. Andy Roark: Welcome everybody to the Cone of Shame veterinary podcast. I am your host, Dr. Andy Roark. Guys, I got a great one for you today. I am here with veterinary behaviorist, Dr. Chris Pachel, and we are talking about the great debate in animal training right now, which is what he calls the seduction of punishment.
We just start off talking about the world seems to have gotten more extreme, and people have become a bit more tribal maybe, about their beliefs, and the battle between people who think that negative reinforcement or punishment makes sense in training programs against people who say we should be either solely or primarily positive reinforcement based. It’s pretty hot right now.
And so we start to wade into that, which I want to, I want to learn more about the balance training. I want to learn about what is this, where does this come from? Help me understand the, , and Chris does a wonderful job of kind of saying, you know, this is what they call it balance training. This is what balance training sort of, puts forward and, and this is what we agree on, this is what we don’t agree on.
Anyway, it’s a really great episode if you are at all interested in behavior. You’re gonna love it. Let’s get into it.
Kelsey Beth Carpenter: (singing) This is your show. We’re glad you’re here. We want to help you in your veterinary career. Welcome to the Cone of Shame with Dr. Andy Roark.
Dr. Andy Roark: Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Christopher Pachel. How are you?
Dr. Chris Pachel: I am doing fantastic, sir. Thanks for having me on today.
Dr. Andy Roark: Oh, my, my pleasure. I, I have so loved having you on the past one of my favorite episodes with you was about two dogs who live in my neighborhood who have big feelings. And I think of you twice a day when I walk my dog past the yard with big feelings. That was just such a good episode. It was so much insight.
And I just, it was just really, I just, I always take things away from our conversations. I, I need your help today. I’ve got, so, so, It’s a little bit tricky interview for me to do, so let me, let me sort of tell you why. I am very much in the pro positive reinforcement training camp, and I know that you are as well.
And, I still get questions about why no negative reinforcement, or how do you feel about these things? And, and I want to have really good answers that don’t feel moral, or judgy, or like, you just don’t, you, you just never, a shock collar ooh, shock. Saying shock collar ooh, it doesn’t, change people’s minds, you know what I mean?
And it doesn’t, it doesn’t meet them where they are. And so I want to ask you, because my impression is that there is still quite a debate about punishment and using punishment in in animal training. And I would like to talk to you about why, sort of why that is, and then sort of ask some questions that I hear about.
Well, why shouldn’t we? You know, we put kids in timeout. Why shouldn’t we have some sort of a, you know, we have a carrot and a stick. Why shouldn’t we have some sort of consequence? And so anyway, can we just start there? And so, first of all, can you validate the scenery? Is there still a debate about punishment in animal training?
Or is, am I just kind of making this up?
Dr. Chris Pachel: No, you’re absolutely on point there, Andy. There is such an incredible debate and I would actually argue that in some ways paralleling some other things within our day to day lives, I would say the divide between the extremes is actually probably greater and more divisive now than I’ve ever seen it within my career.
So, We’ve got a lot of very firmly entrenched belief systems about what we should or should not be doing with dogs and cats and horses and all of the other species that we train. And very little active conversation between differing viewpoints. And so it’s a very sort of polarizing conversation right now.
And so the opportunity to have a conversation like this where we’re truly saying, what’s the deal here? Big picture and at the practical level is really an awesome opportunity for me to have.
Dr. Andy Roark: Well, it breaks my heart that you say that and it totally tracks with what we see in the world, right? It’s just we see more and more extreme views and more sort of tribalism and people who go nope, this is what I’m gonna believe and it’s it’s it’s sad, but it it I can’t say it’s unexpected. When you say it that way, I go, yeah, that, that fits.
Okay. Well, open, open this position or open this conversation up for me here, Chris. And like, state for me the sort of the two sides as you see them, is it just two sides or are there a bunch of different belief systems? Who are the players when we talk about belief systems around animal training and punishment?
Dr. Chris Pachel: Yeah, I would say the two biggest sort of camps that exist in the animal training world would be those who seem to skew more towards positive reinforcement as a sole focus or primary focus. We’re basically saying reinforcement, reinforcement, reinforcement, manage the environment, but overall reinforce the behaviors you’re looking for.
The animals will offer more of those and so on.
Dr. Andy Roark: Yep.
Dr. Chris Pachel: And then you’ve got a camp that’s a bit more, I think the most common language would be a balanced trainer, which is basically saying, I get that, I will use reinforcement that matters to the animal, but I’m also not going to shy away from the stick. You know, there’s going to be an intentional inclusion of corrective consequences.
And typically the way we look at it more from a scientific lens would be, are we leaning more into reinforcement and strengthening of behaviors? Or are we using aversives in some way that carries a greater risk of poisoning the experience for the animal and we’re leveraging aversives within our training more so than the reinforcement or at least as much so as the reinforcement.
So depending on whether you’re coming at it from the layperson’s angle or whether you’re coming at it more from the scientific literature and that dialogue, the, the labels change a little bit, but generally speaking, those are the two camps that we’re talking about.
Dr. Andy Roark: Okay, so when we talk about, I mean, when we talk about, you know, sole primary positive focus, I think most of us kind of know what that is. We’re talking a lot about praise, we’re talking a lot about treats, we’re talking about trying to do things that are fun and rewarding for the pets. And probably a mixture of sort of training, training techniques around that, and maybe you might be able to flesh that out a little bit.
I think what I’d like. What we talk about the balance training and you talk about behaviors or techniques that might be aversive, what are we talking about? The ones that I’ve, I mean, I still hear people talking about the electronic, the shock collars or the prong collars, things like that. Is that kind of the main thing when we talk about dogs or dogs and cats or are there other sort of techniques that are, that are, I don’t know, negative consequences that, that people are using?
Dr. Chris Pachel: Yeah, those are certainly one, one of the ones that kind of get the most publicity or the most airtime, so to speak. And we’re talking about shock collars or prong collars or chain collars or things like that. But truthfully, anything that is essentially adding an aversive as a consequence to a behavior, would fit into that camp.
So we’re thinking about things like somebody using a squirt bottle for the cat that jumps up onto the countertop or the owner who in response to a dog jumping up and the visitors, they yell, no, as the correction for that. Or we’re walking down the street and the dog is forging or pulling ahead and you see them sort of jerking or tugging on the collar as a way of creating an aversive consequence, presumably as a way to decrease the likelihood of that particular behavior happening again in the future.
Dr. Andy Roark: Okay. Talk to me. So we’ve all seen that. Again, the, the, the, the can of coins, the squirt bottle, you know, for, for cats, the, the loud no or hand clapping when, when a dog jumps up on. We’ve all seen that. And when people lay it out and say, Oh, well, you have to disrupt the behavior. I’m trying to get the pet’s attention.
I want to scare them so that they can’t they, they don’t do this behavior again. The logic at least makes sense. I’m not talking about from a cruelty standpoint, but I go, okay. I hear that. And when people say, well, if my child runs up and punches someone in the stomach, I’m going to say no. And they’re going to have a similar experience.
Break, break that down for me a little bit there. Are there flaws in that logic?
Dr. Chris Pachel: There are, there’s a couple of them. And, and so I think about it often in my framework, at least I often refer to it as the seduction of punishment. And what I mean by that is if we’re seeing an unwanted behavior, whether that’s a child darting toward the street or a dog jumping up on a person or a cat scratching the furniture, those are unwanted behaviors.
And so our first instinct as, as a human, as a sort of a rational being is to say, well, I want to stop that. So when the, when the animal does that, it seems completely and totally logical and even intuitive that we would say, yeah, when they do that, I’m going to create an unpleasant experience. So the next time around, they’ll think about what they’ve done and they’ll choose to do that differently.
Right? All of that makes complete and total sense. And you and I could go down a laundry list of all of the things that we’ve done in our own lives, that had an unpleasant outcome. And so we chose to do things differently the next time around, right? So the logic is solid and that punishment absolutely can work.
Now, that’s the piece where we then start to say, and what are the caveats that need to be in place when and if we’re going down that pathway? And I typically break this down with the acronym ICE. Or I, C and E,
Those stand for immediacy, consistency and efficacy. That basically means that if I am going to intentionally use a correction, and for anybody listening right here, I’m in, in going through this and the logic and unpacking this, I’m not advocating for this as an intervention.
I’m not saying that we should do this, but in order to understand the pros and cons and the logic here, we have to unpack this, right? So the immediacy is basically the timing element. Now, if we’re thinking about the cat jumping on the counter, for example, the timing of when a correction would occur would be essentially right as the cat is sort of getting into that pre jump crouch, for example, right as the moment where their brain is saying, what I’m about to do next is this right at the moment of the initiation of behavior.
That’s generally where a correction is going to be most easily interpreted by the learner and associated with that particular behavior. So that’s the immediacy and the timing piece. It’s not when the cat walks into the kitchen. It’s not when they’ve been lying on top of the counter for 15 minutes. It’s truly at the initiation of the behavior.
So that’s number one. Second
Dr. Andy Roark: It’s not the, it’s not when the owner becomes frustrated.
Dr. Chris Pachel: Exactly. Or even when the becomes aware.
Dr. Andy Roark: I was, I, when I saw it, I immediately got really mad. That’s not the immediacy we’re talking about. Okay.
Dr. Chris Pachel: It’s, it’s not, but that’s, that’s such an important point. We’ll come back to that too, because that is, that’s where we can get off track. The consistency piece is also relevant from the perspective of the animal, so that as close to one to one as possible, when the behavior occurs, that unpleasant consequence immediately follows.
And so we have a connection. Now, again, this is a place where owners may say, well, I only correct them. I only reach for the squirt bottle when I see them on the counter. And I’m not talking about the consistency of owner behavior. I’m talking about the consistency from the animal’s perspective.
Dr. Andy Roark: Yeah.
Dr. Chris Pachel: That’s what really matters.
And we’ll come back to that piece when we put these all together in just a second. But from the learner’s perspective, is there essentially a one to one correlation between the behavior and a consequence? And then lastly, the efficacy piece. If a punishment or an aversive consequence is truly functioning as a punishment rather than just an interruptive stimulus as an attention getter, we should actually see that the behavior is less likely to happen again in the future under similar circumstances.
If it’s not doing that, that aversive consequence is actually not functioning as a punishment. It’s only functioning as an interrupter, which means we’re going to have to keep interrupting the behavior because we’re not actually having an impact in the future. Now, the tricky piece in putting all of these things together is if we are able to utilize those rules of immediacy, consistency and efficacy, meaning we change the behavior in just a small handful or maybe even one or two repetitions, then punishment is a reliable way to change behavior.
But even in those cases where it works, what we are evoking within the brain and the way that the animal processes information is we’re actually triggering an avoidance or an escape response. That I’m going to try to avoid that thing that was unpleasant. So it actually evokes a bit of that limbic system fight flight motivation more so than any other activation within the brain because it’s creating that avoidance because it’s unpleasant to the animal.
There is an element of stress that is inherently included within that even when it works and even when it works as intended.
Dr. Andy Roark: Right.
Dr. Chris Pachel: And because most people in a real world scenario are going to struggle with timing consistency or they get into that loop where they’re continuing to reprimand, tug the leash, squirt with water, whatever the case may be.
We now have an animal who’s experiencing an unpleasant, maybe even pain or stress inducing stimulus. In a way that’s actually not predictable, controllable, or avoidable based on their understanding of that relationship or lack of relationship between the punishment and the consequence. And when we talk about that, an unpleasant experience over which we have no understanding or control, that’s the recipe for situational or generalized anxiety.
It just is. In comparison to more of a reinforcement based strategy that’s invoking more of the the neurotransmitters. We’re targeting dopamine and the seeking systems and the animal who’s trying harder and harder to do it even more right, if you will, as opposed to invoking that fear response or avoidance response of trying to avoid doing it wrong.
Hey guys, are you a team lead who has not yet registered for the Uncharted Team Leads Summit? if you are, if you’re a head technician, head CSR or something like that. You need to be at the Team Leads Summit. It is a one day virtual event. It is taking place on September the 18th and early bird pricing is about to end that’s right.
The early bird pricing ends on August 16th. You should be there. You should be growing your career. You should be stretching and expanding your skills. You should be getting better at managing and leading other people so that you enjoy your work more and your patients get better outcomes and your team runs more smoothly. And your practice culture is better.
All those things come from you being comfortable, confident well-trained able to handle the stresses that are put on team leads. Cause guys, the team lead role is just growing in importance.
I’ll be there. I’ve got a session is called the Jedi Mind Trick how to get doctors to do what you want. Sarah Parsons is there talking about boosting morale. Maria Pirita is doing Conflict Management, Mastering Mediation.
So you know that there’s going to be times that you are going to have to get in between two people that you lead that are not getting along. Let’s make you a better mediator. Let me give you the basics so that, you know, sometimes. They’re not able to sort it out on their own and we have to help make that happen. To keep the team functioning at a high level.
Let’s let’s get some skills guys. Tyler Grogan and Kelsey Carpenter are going to be doing Becoming the Coach, Not the Referee. As you can tell, this program is absolutely jam packed with useful sessions for team leads. Grab it before early bird registration ends on August the 16th, and we will see you on September the 18th link in the show notes.
I hope to see you there.
Dr. Andy Roark: Do you think, Chris, that if someone’s using a training approach that, that leverages aversives, is the pet that they’re working with, dog, cat, whatever are they, would you say that, that the consequences of this, you know, this sort of this sort of stress response is that uniform across the patients being trained or is it sort of a case by case basis?
I think what I’m asking is if you have a trainer and they’re out there and they’re leveraging what they call a balanced training technique Are they? instilling a sense of fear and stress into every patient they work with? Or is it 90 percent of the patients really have no ill effects, but 10%, you know, are, are internalizing this in a substantial way.
So help me, help me see that.
Dr. Chris Pachel: It’s such a great question and it does vary a lot based on the skill of the individual using the technique. And also the level of sensitivity of the animal. An animal who is inherently more anxiety prone, who needs a greater degree of predictability in order to feel safe in their world, is going to be more sensitive to any sort of training method that’s going to be variable in the way that it’s applied.
So there’s a lot of individual variability. And one of the challenges that we really find is, you know, especially from the advocates of, of balanced training who, who really say, no, no, no, it’s a short term stress. The animal will undoubtedly experience stress, but it’s short term. They learned the rule and we don’t see that ongoing stress, you know, for, for the duration of, of training or, or ongoing.
That does happen. It’s absolutely the case. I’ve, you know, I’ve witnessed that sort of training where we see a short term stress response and then it does seem like the animal learns the rule and we don’t see that as an ongoing welfare concern. However, you can’t predict how that individual animal is going to respond until you subject them to those conditions.
And if they have that sensitizing response, we can’t just say, oops, I made a mistake. Let me go back and try that again. Let’s wipe the slate clean and start over. It doesn’t work that way. That experience is now a part of that animal’s learning history, and I can’t erase it. And so even when people say, no, no, no, it absolutely can work.
I agree with them. Yes, it can. And across the board, it carries a greater level of risk of that fallout of coercion or punishment or the use of aversives compared to other methodology. And science is really clear on that. It’s not about my values or my judgment or my preference. The scientific literature is clear that when we are using aversives as a form of training, the animal experiences a greater level of stress as a part of that training compared to other methods.
Dr. Andy Roark: That totally makes sense. And also, I appreciate you sort of saying that, that balanced trainers would own this and say, yes, it does cause stress, but only for the short term. That, that, that at least helps me understand that position a lot more clearly. So it’s not that we’re, we’re pretending this isn’t true.
It’s like, okay, but we believe it’s short term. Is, has there been any published research or anything, Chris, on efficacy of training techniques? Is it that maybe a balance tech balance approach, does it generate a faster results, but it has this specific downside, or is there really not been shown any difference in a balance training approach versus a solely or predominantly positive approach?
Dr. Chris Pachel: Yeah, the efficacy piece is a really good detail to look at because if it was true that yeah, there’s a short term stressor, there’s a slightly greater risk, but man, the results are so off the charts better. Then maybe it’s worth it. Just like when we’re thinking about reaching for medications or prescriptions or treatments, if there’s a side effect, but dang, if it works, we’re launching forward in terms of what happens next, then maybe that’s a calculated risk.
The research actually doesn’t support that there’s a significant benefit of that increased risk. There may be individual circumstances where yes, and again, in some cases we may be able to achieve a faster result, or when our goal is actually conditioning an avoidance response or a fear response, of course, we’re going to be able to do that more quickly and more reliably, utilizing something that the animal finds unpleasant.
But in terms of looking at foundational training, whether we’re looking at behavior modification, even including the aggression cases that we see, there is no evidence to suggest consistently that taking a punishment or balanced approach is likely to be more effective. And again, the risk is greater.
Dr. Andy Roark: Yeah, Chris, this has been fantastic. You are a veterinary behaviorist in Portland, Oregon. You are at the Animal Behavior Clinic and Instinct Dog Training. Where can people find you online if they’d like to learn more from you or see what you’re up to?
Dr. Chris Pachel: Yeah, the best place to look to get access to all of those things that I do, including some other projects that I’m involved with is drPachel.com, so d r p a c h e l. com. And on that main landing page, you’ll be able to link to all of the projects that I’m affiliated with, including the media page with podcast recordings like this one and other webinars and other conversations.
Dr. Andy Roark: Well, this has just been excellent. I really appreciate you talking through with you. I took a lot away from this. It’s really, it’s, I don’t know, it helps me so much to understand the debate that’s there. Thanks so much for being here. Guys, thanks for tuning in, everybody. Take care of yourselves, gang.
And that’s what I got for you. Thanks to Chris Pachel for being here. Thanks to you for being here. Thanks to me for being here. I’m just gonna pat myself on the back because if I don’t, no one will. Anyway, that’s what, that’s what I got to say for today. Take care of yourselves, everybody. Be well. I’ll talk to you later on.