Category: Theory, Terms & Abbreviations ¤ Author: Yvonne Lord ¤ Title: Operant Condtioning - Respondent Conditioning ¤ you wrote.... > by voluntary I understand the behaviour to >be produced consciously and/or sub-consciously by the dog, I agree that >the dog does not have to be even aware of which behaviour you are >reinforcing So my question is, WHAT is voluntary about unconscious behaviors? If you replace voluntary with operant, you get a statement that makes sense, but doesn't particularly help us as clicker trainers. The easy solution is to just use the word behavior. Don't worry about whether it is voluntary or not... don't even worry if it is produced by presenting some stimulus ( luring teams classical conditioning with operant conditioning! which really makes it confusing!) Operant conditioning is simply when we (the trainers) create consequences (R+, R-, P+, P-) for behaviors that are offered by the dog(child, pony, etc) Clicker training is a subset of operant conditioning that improves our ability to communicate with the dog about WHAT BEHAVIOR EXACTLY that the consequencees are for! >for your example with Merry's tail if you had held the tail up >with your hand and "clicked", you would not have got a high tail carriage. Actually, I would have - but more slowly! If you let the dog OFFER the behavior, the conditioning process happens more quickly (usually) than if you physically push or pull the dog into position, but the physical method *does* work. >Also, the 'high tail' carriage could be an indication of the conditioning >of a positive emotional state in the dog brought about by the pleasure >of clicker training the "trainer". Actually, given the consequences of teaching her to hold her tail up, I did something much like this... as she is my smallest dog and used to be on the bottom of the 'dominance' scale inalmost every activity... and now she's at the top for many activities. I joke about my "terrier assertiveness training seminar!" But it doesn't matter whether I 'trained' her tail or her mood... I got what I wanted (the tail up) ...as well as a bonus... assertiveness. >The difference between operant and classical is that with operant the dog >is operating on the environment, with classical the environment acts upon >the dog, the trainer is part of the dog's environment. does this make >sense?. The trainer is part of the dog's environment in both cases. I would rephrase your statement a little to make it clearer... In operant conditioning, the dog's behavior is increased or decreased by the CONSEQUENCES of the behavior (environment provides consequences) In Classical conditioning, the behavior is produced AS A REACTION to some stimulus in the environment. (consequences are irrelevant.) In OC, the dog often CHOOSES, but in RC the dog only reacts; in OC, how the behavior is produced is of little matter; this is the center of RC. so... >IMO the "click" can be both a stimulus and a consequence. when we are >charging up the clicker, or conditioning the clicker we are using it as a >stimulus, using classical conditioning. When we are using it to reinforce >operant behaviour it is a consequence, using operant conditioning. ...yes, when we are conditioning the dog to understand that the clicker means good, yes, that *is* respondent conditioning, for we click (precede the unconditioned stimulus with a neutral stimulus) and then treat (the unconditioned stimulus)... ... but when we click when the dog offers a behavior we like, it is OC, because the dog offers us a behavior (we like!) and then we click (consequence.) So anyone who has trained their dog to shake, or sneeze or yawn or stretch or bark by first STIMULATING THE DOG to offer the behavior simply used RC to get the beahvior.... and then CLICKING THE BEHAVIOR ...was using BOTH RC and OC... and frankly, that's no big deal. Clicker trainers use RC in conjunction with OC on a regular basis. RC and OC are not mutually exclusive! A few months ago, in a similar thread, Bob Bailey pointed out that the differences between RC and OC were not as clear as people thought, for something can be used to stimulate behavior at the same time as reward it... Marian Breland Bailey had written some papers on the subject. I never did trace them. I thought about that for a while and I finally figured it out. My kerry used to go nuts at the sound of my coffee grinder. She'd bark and bounce and growl and shake a toy to kill it.... It was obnoxious. The coffee grinder stimulates her to quite an extreme aggressive display. I wanted to teach her not to do that. I did the clicker-training solution, asked her to sit and stay while the coffee grinder was on. Problem, she didn't want the food treat anymore... and this is a dog who will turn inside out for food treats! I am now using the SOUND OF THE GRINDER to both stimulate and REWARD her for SITTING DURING THE SOUND OF THE COFFEE GRINDER.... and she sits there and just QUIVERS! and grins at me, and is sad when the coffee grinder is finished! Silly dog.