Negative reinforcement gets a bad rap – after all, why would someone want to beat a horse? Why indeed! When asked about if they use negative reinforcement in their training, riders frequently assure one that they do not… ‘no, I only use positive reinforcement’ comes the earnest reply.
But in fact, negative reinforcement is indeed the trainer’s friend, and has nothing to do with beating horses or performing any other dodgy activities.
But what does negative reinforcement actually mean?
Unlike the common misconception that it is something ‘bad’ – as humans, we tend to associate the word ‘negative’ to averse consequences, for example a sarcastic remark is ‘negative’, a fight is ‘negative’; but negative reinforcement in animal training is simply the removal of something that results in improved responding rates.
While this terminology originates in behavioural psychology, the meaning can be found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary [negative n. 2. negative quality, absence of something, negative v.t. neutralize (effect)].
To understand this negative reinforcement, we also probably need to know what ‘reinforcement’ means… the Concise says that to reinforce something means ‘to strengthen or support’, including in quantity, size, importance – so this suggests an impression of an increase in force or magnitude.
But The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, written by Arthur and Emily Reber recognises use of the term also elicits confusion among psychologists. Is it any wonder we are confused?! The Rebers – after a useful diatribe exploring ‘reinforcement’ finally come up with
any event, stimulus, act, response or information when made contingent upon the response that preceded it, serves to increase the relative frequency or likelihood of occurrence of that response.
Simply put, negative involves removal or absence, and a reinforcer increases responses – Simple!
What does it mean to a horse-rider? No matter what anyone says, people ride using negative reinforcement. The stimulis (aids) are applied using a bridle, bit, halter, string around the neck and the legs on the horse’s sides. The removal of the bit pressure or the leg pressure removes discomfort and signals to the horse that his response was correct. The horse has no way of determining that his response is ‘correct’ if he is not rewarded by a removal of the stimulus when the response occurs.
All good horsemen (yes, women too) know this. The Dorrance brothers knew this, Philippe Karl knows this, Andrew McLean knows this, Steffen Peters knows this. The old masters knew this ‘leg without hand, hand without leg’. Gas pedal and brakes do not go on together.
Repeat after me…
‘correct use of negative reinforcement is a good thing’!
At the most subtle level (blink and you will miss it) the best proponents of the German system may recognise this, but that system is terrible at expressing it or teaching riders to ride using correct negative reinforcement, with confusion produced by statements such as ‘the horse must be through’, and be ridden ‘with the forward-driving aids into the hand’, undoubtedly leading to some of the abominations seen at all levels of the sport with horses suffering from relentless pressure.
Another day, we will explore positive reinforcement – also a good thing!
{ 6 comments }
