maberi wrote:I agree a dog might increase a reactive behavior (hiding, running to its owners) if those behaviors reduced their anxiety, fear, etc.... If that is the case, and those behaviors end up reducing the fear, (new people approaching, etc..) is this a bad thing? I would think reducing a dogs fear of something would be much harder than reducing an operant behavior (whatever that might be)
From my understanding (could be totally wrong so let me know), when we are discussing fear, there is the emotional response, which is affected by classical conditioning and the behavioral response, which is affected by operant conditioning.
I'm taking a break b/c I'm cooking...
That's what I was trying to say when I brought up drug overdoses...things don't occur in a vacuum...and everyone needs to stop acting like they do...
However, a fear response can be an operant behavior...I have successfully trained fear aggressive dogs to not fear the thing they were originally afraid of (I'm not going to use Rocky as an example because he had a messed up brain, and there was no fixing him)...I did it by doing several things...
The owner told me that every time the dog was afraid, it got aggressive, so I asked to witness this...
Then, rather than taking the dog or the feared object away when the dog was being aggressive, I made the owner ignore the dog when it got aggressive, while keeping the feared object around...as soon as the dog calmed down, the object went away...so now the feared object (bad thing) goes away when the dog is calm so that the CALMNESS is the behavior that becomes increased...in the process, hwoever, it also desensitized the dog to the object...and desensitization is a principle of classical conditioning
With a different dog that was afraid of men (but not aggressive), I used marker training to work with the dog. I had Greg sit on the ground with his back to the dog...when the dog would take the tiniest step forward, I would mark the behavior and give the treat. This way, the food WASN'T coming from Greg (if it was, then we could say that there was more classical conditioning going on)...so, coming from me, the food was an actual consequence....does that make sense?
Another thing to keep in mind is that whenever we're talking about giving or taking away something, a consequence, we're talking about operant conditioning; whenever we're talking about the association between 2 stimuli it's classical conditioning...
maberi wrote:katiek0417 wrote:And,

, I'm not running from this discussion...however, I do have about 120 exams to grade this weekend (I will willingly accept volunteer help

), and would actually like to spend some time with Greg...so if I don't get on here the rest of the weekend, it's not b/c I don't want to continue in the discussion...I'm just trying to get this crap-ola done!
Likely excuse

If you'd like me to send you some, I'd be more than happy to share the pain
