Training Petting Zoo Sheep to Act Like Petting Zoo Sheep: An Empirical Evaluation of Response-Independent Schedules and Shaping with Negative Reinforcement

Abstract

<jats:p>Shaping through differential reinforcement of successive approximations to a target response has been a cornerstone procedure for the training of novel behavior. However, much of how it has traditionally been implemented occurs through informal observation, rather than any direct, systematic measurement. In the present study, we examine the use of response-independent food schedules and shaping for increasing approach and contact behaviors in petting zoo sheep. In Experiment 1, a fixed-time (FT) 15 s food schedule was used to effectively increase approach and contact behaviors in one sheep. In Experiment 2, negative reinforcement in the form of removal of the presence of a trainer was made contingent on the successful completion of approximations within a shaping procedure and later switched to food rewards. A changing-criterion design was used to empirically examine the effects of the shaping procedure during each step of the program. The result is one of the first studies to demonstrate the utility of using negative reinforcement within a shaping procedure to successfully intervene on approach/avoidance behaviors in an applied animal setting.</jats:p>

Individualized Target Training Facilitated Transfer of Group Housed Capuchin Monkeys (Sapajus apella) to Test Cubicles and Discrimination of Targets on Computer Touch Screens

“…A variety of factors likely contributed to our capuchins' faster training. Several aspects of our PRT procedures were chosen to maximize training speed: desensitization to the cubicles and hand feeding preceding PRT, the use of individual targets, more frequent and shorter training sessions (also see [20]), the use of smaller approximations during the shaping process [21,22] and the use of touch screens rather than joysticks all likely shortened our training times. In addition, social interactions among capuchins might have contributed to the shorter training times in our study in two ways.…”

What’s in a Click? The Efficacy of Conditioned Reinforcement in Applied Animal Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Two earlier reviews on the use of conditioned reinforcement in the animal behavior realm reached similar conclusions (e.g., clicker training [ 40 , 41 ]). This trend in the literature is surprising, as several authors have pointed out that reinforcement-based animal training, including conditioned reinforcement, is firmly rooted in behavior analysis [ 3 , 18 , 84 , 85 ], and has been shown to be successful in improving a wide range of socially relevant behaviors across settings and species (e.g., fear-related behavior in dogs and sheep [ 86 , 87 , 88 ]). Further investigation seems needed to explore and, hopefully improve, conceptual and methodological cohesiveness in the implementation of procedures with a behavior-analytic tradition in applied animal contexts [ 89 , 90 ].…”

Grounding applied animal behavior practices in the experimental analysis of behavior

“…The shaping process, however, also can be harnessed, streamlined, and focused when some agent, either human or mechanical, controls the process (Gleeson, 1991; Pear & Legris, 1987). Given its well‐established ubiquity, it is surprising that there is so little systematic basic laboratory research on shaping (but see, e.g., Ferguson & Rosales‐Ruiz, 2001; Fernandez, 2020; Fernandez & Dorey, 2021; Fernandez & Rosales‐Ruiz, 2021; Ghaemmaghami et al, 2018; Osborne & Himadi, 1990; Slater & Dymond, 2011). Most reports of shaping involve a description of the process (e.g., Skinner, 1953) or an algorithm by which it might occur (Galbicka, 1994; Midgley et al, 1989; Pear & Legris, 1987).…”