Training Methodologies
All good science is built on information that has come before. When done well, research is a culmination of what we know so far. APDT International has defined its own standards through a collective of resources. While the organization maintains that no single methodology has offered enough clarity to stand alone as a complete system of standards, as a scientifically based and education focused organization, APDT International recognizes the innovative work and valuable advances each theory and methodology that has helped the profession reach the depth of knowledge we benefit from currently. In the continued pursuit of the most ethical and humane practices in the relationship between humans and dogs across the training and behavior field, it is critical to continue the evolution of our standards with the best information we have access to. For that reason, we maintain this page dedicated to support and education of current and past information, while continuing to grow standards and accountability for our members.
Training Methodologies
Training Methodologies
All good science is built on information that has come before. When done well, research is a culmination of what we know so far. APDT International has defined its own standards through a collective of resources. While the organization maintains that no single methodology has offered enough clarity to stand alone as a complete system of standards, as a scientifically based and education focused organization, APDT International recognizes the innovative work and valuable advances each theory and methodology that has helped the profession reach the depth of knowledge we benefit from currently. In the continued pursuit of the most ethical and humane practices in the relationship between humans and dogs across the training and behavior field, it is critical to continue the evolution of our standards with the best information we have access to. For that reason, we maintain this page dedicated to support and education of current and past information, while continuing to grow standards and accountability for our members.
All good science is built on information that has come before. When done well, research is a culmination of what we know so far. APDT International has defined its own standards through a collective of resources. While the organization maintains that no single methodology has offered enough clarity to stand alone as a complete system of standards, as a scientifically based and education focused organization, APDT International recognizes the innovative work and valuable advances each theory and methodology that has helped the profession reach the depth of knowledge we benefit from currently. In the continued pursuit of the most ethical and humane practices in the relationship between humans and dogs across the training and behavior field, it is critical to continue the evolution of our standards with the best information we have access to. For that reason, we maintain this page dedicated to support and education of current and past information, while continuing to grow standards and accountability for our members.
Section 1
Least Instrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA)
“LIMA” is an acronym for the phrase “least intrusive, minimally aversive”. LIMA describes a trainer or behavior consultant who uses the least intrusive, minimally aversive strategy out of a set of humane and effective tactics likely to succeed in achieving a training or behavior change objective with minimal risk of producing aversive side effects. LIMA adherence also requires consultants to be adequately educated and skilled in order to ensure that the least intrusive and aversive procedure is used. 1 LIMA does not justify the use of punishment in lieu of other effective interventions and strategies. In the vast majority of cases, desired behavior change can be affected by focusing on the animal’s environment, physical well-being, and operant and classical interventions such as differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior, desensitization, and counter-conditioning.
LIMA requires trainers/consultants to work to increase the use of positive reinforcement and eliminate the use of punishment when working with animal and human clients. In order to ensure best practices, consultants should pursue and maintain competence in animal behavior consulting and training through continuing education, and hands-on experience. Trainers/consultants should not advise on problems outside the recognized boundaries of their competencies and experience. 2
Positive reinforcement should be the first line of teaching, training, and behavior change program considered, and should be applied consistently. Positive reinforcement is associated with the lowest incidence of aggression, attention seeking, avoidance, and fear in learners. 3 Only the learner determines what may be reinforcing. It is crucial that the trainer/consultant understands and has the ability to appropriately apply this principle. This fact may mean that the trainer/consultant assesses any handling, petting, food, tool, and environment each time the learner experiences them. Personal bias must not determine the learner’s experience. The measure of each stimulus is whether the learner’s target behavior is strengthening or weakening, not the trainer/consultant’s intent or preference.
The trainer/consultant is responsible for ensuring learner success through a consistent, systematic approach that identifies a specific target behavior, the purpose of that behavior, and the consequences that maintain the behavior. A variety of learning and behavior change strategies may come into play during a case. Ethical use of this variety always depends on the trainer/consultant’s ability to adequately problem solve and to understand the impact of each action on the learner, as well as sensitivity toward the learner’s experience.
We seek to prevent the abuses and potential repercussions of inappropriate, poorly applied, and inhumane uses of punishment and of overly-restrictive management and confinement strategies. The potential effects of punishment can include aggression or counter-aggression; suppressed behavior (preventing the trainer/consultant from adequately reading the animal); increased anxiety and fear; physical harm; a negative association with the owner or handler; increased unwanted behavior; and, new, unwanted behaviors. 5
LIMA guidelines require that trainer/consultants always offer the learner as much control and choice as possible. Trainer/consultants must treat each individual of any species with respect and awareness of the learner’s individual nature, preferences, abilities, and needs. 6
We focus on reinforcing desired behaviors, and always ask the question, “What do you want the animal to do?” Relying on punishment in training does not answer this question, and therefore offers no acceptable behavior for the animal to learn to replace the unwanted behavior. These LIMA guidelines do not justify the use of aversive methods and tools including, but not limited to, the use of electronic, choke or prong collars in lieu of other effective positive reinforcement interventions and strategies.
Intrusiveness refers to the degree to which a procedure affects the learners control. With a less intrusive procedure, a learner retains more control. The goal of LIMA is for its trainers/consultants to determine and use the least intrusive effective intervention which will effectively address the target behavior. In the course of an experienced trainer/consultant’s practice, he or she may identify a situation in which a relatively more intrusive procedure is necessary for an effective outcome. In such a case, a procedure that reduces the learner’s control may be the least intrusive, effective choice. Additionally, wellness is at the top of the hierarchy to ensure that a trainer/consultant does not implement a learning solution for behavior problems due to pain or illness. The hierarchy is a cautionary tool to reduce both dogmatic rule following and practice by familiarity or convenience. It offers an ethical checkpoint for consultants to carefully consider the process by which effective outcomes can be most humanely achieved on a case-by-case basis. The hierarchy is intended to be approached in order for each case. Rationale like, “It worked with the last case!” is not appropriate. The evaluation and behavior change program of every animal should be a study of the individual (i.e., individual animal, setting, caregiver, etc.). Changing behavior is best understood as a study of one.
1 Steven Lindsay, Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training Vol 3 pgs. 29 & 726. 2 Per the IAABC, APDT and CCPDT Joint Code of Conduct 3 “[The] use of positive reinforcement alone was associated with the lowest mean scores (attention- seeking score 0.33; fear (avoidance) score 0.18; aggression score 0.1). The highest mean attention-seeking score (0.49) was found in dogs whose owners used a combination of positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. The highest mean avoidance score (0.31) was found in dogs whose owners used a combination of all categories of training method. Owners using a combination of positive reinforcement and positive punishment had dogs with the highest mean aggression score (0.27).” Emily J. Blackwell, Caroline Twells, Anne Seawright, Rachel A. Casey, The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs, Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 3, Issue 5, September–October 2008, Pages 207-217, ISSN 1558-7878, HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.JVEB.2007.10.008. 5 See avsabonline.org • Hutchinson RR. 1977. By-products of aversive control. In: Honig WK, Staddon JER, eds. Handbook of Operant Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall: 415-431.• Azrin NH. 1960. Effects of punishment intensity during variable-interval reinforcement. J Exp Analysis Behav 3: 123-142.• Azrin NH, Holz WC, Hake DR. 1963. Fixed-ratio punishment. J Exp Analysis Behav 6: 141-148. • Pauli AM, Bentley E, Diehl AK, Miller PE. 2006. Effects of the application of neck pressure by a collar or harness on intraocular pressure in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 42(3): 207-211. • Drobatz KJ, Saunders HM, Pugh CR, Hendricks JC. 1995. Noncardiogenic pulmonary edema in dogs and cats: 26 cases (1987-1993). J Am Vet Med Assoc 206: 1732-1736. • Azrin NH, Rubin HB, Hutchinson RR. 1968. Biting attack by rats in response to aversive shock. J Exp Analysis Behav 11: 633-639. 6 Brambell’s Five Freedoms, used as animal and human welfare guidelines: • Freedom from hunger or thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor • Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area • Freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment • Freedom to express (most) normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind • Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoids mental suffering 7 S. Friedman, What’s Wrong with this Picture? Effectiveness is Not Enough, APDT Journal March/April 2010 8 Position statement on humane dog training … – vet.osu.edu. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://vet.osu.edu/vmc/sites/default/files/files/companion/behavior/avsab-humane-dog-training-position-statement-2021.pdf
Section 1
Least Instrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA)
“LIMA” is an acronym for the phrase “least intrusive, minimally aversive”. LIMA describes a trainer or behavior consultant who uses the least intrusive, minimally aversive strategy out of a set of humane and effective tactics likely to succeed in achieving a training or behavior change objective with minimal risk of producing aversive side effects. LIMA adherence also requires consultants to be adequately educated and skilled in order to ensure that the least intrusive and aversive procedure is used. 1 LIMA does not justify the use of punishment in lieu of other effective interventions and strategies. In the vast majority of cases, desired behavior change can be affected by focusing on the animal’s environment, physical well-being, and operant and classical interventions such as differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior, desensitization, and counter-conditioning.
LIMA requires trainers/consultants to work to increase the use of positive reinforcement and eliminate the use of punishment when working with animal and human clients. In order to ensure best practices, consultants should pursue and maintain competence in animal behavior consulting and training through continuing education, and hands-on experience. Trainers/consultants should not advise on problems outside the recognized boundaries of their competencies and experience. 2
Positive reinforcement should be the first line of teaching, training, and behavior change program considered, and should be applied consistently. Positive reinforcement is associated with the lowest incidence of aggression, attention seeking, avoidance, and fear in learners. 3 Only the learner determines what may be reinforcing. It is crucial that the trainer/consultant understands and has the ability to appropriately apply this principle. This fact may mean that the trainer/consultant assesses any handling, petting, food, tool, and environment each time the learner experiences them. Personal bias must not determine the learner’s experience. The measure of each stimulus is whether the learner’s target behavior is strengthening or weakening, not the trainer/consultant’s intent or preference.
The trainer/consultant is responsible for ensuring learner success through a consistent, systematic approach that identifies a specific target behavior, the purpose of that behavior, and the consequences that maintain the behavior. A variety of learning and behavior change strategies may come into play during a case. Ethical use of this variety always depends on the trainer/consultant’s ability to adequately problem solve and to understand the impact of each action on the learner, as well as sensitivity toward the learner’s experience.
We seek to prevent the abuses and potential repercussions of inappropriate, poorly applied, and inhumane uses of punishment and of overly-restrictive management and confinement strategies. The potential effects of punishment can include aggression or counter-aggression; suppressed behavior (preventing the trainer/consultant from adequately reading the animal); increased anxiety and fear; physical harm; a negative association with the owner or handler; increased unwanted behavior; and, new, unwanted behaviors. 5
LIMA guidelines require that trainer/consultants always offer the learner as much control and choice as possible. Trainer/consultants must treat each individual of any species with respect and awareness of the learner’s individual nature, preferences, abilities, and needs. 6
We focus on reinforcing desired behaviors, and always ask the question, “What do you want the animal to do?” Relying on punishment in training does not answer this question, and therefore offers no acceptable behavior for the animal to learn to replace the unwanted behavior. These LIMA guidelines do not justify the use of aversive methods and tools including, but not limited to, the use of electronic, choke or prong collars in lieu of other effective positive reinforcement interventions and strategies.
Intrusiveness refers to the degree to which a procedure affects the learners control. With a less intrusive procedure, a learner retains more control. The goal of LIMA is for its trainers/consultants to determine and use the least intrusive effective intervention which will effectively address the target behavior. In the course of an experienced trainer/consultant’s practice, he or she may identify a situation in which a relatively more intrusive procedure is necessary for an effective outcome. In such a case, a procedure that reduces the learner’s control may be the least intrusive, effective choice. Additionally, wellness is at the top of the hierarchy to ensure that a trainer/consultant does not implement a learning solution for behavior problems due to pain or illness. The hierarchy is a cautionary tool to reduce both dogmatic rule following and practice by familiarity or convenience. It offers an ethical checkpoint for consultants to carefully consider the process by which effective outcomes can be most humanely achieved on a case-by-case basis. The hierarchy is intended to be approached in order for each case. Rationale like, “It worked with the last case!” is not appropriate. The evaluation and behavior change program of every animal should be a study of the individual (i.e., individual animal, setting, caregiver, etc.). Changing behavior is best understood as a study of one.
Section 1
Least Instrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA)
“LIMA” is an acronym for the phrase “least intrusive, minimally aversive”. LIMA describes a trainer or behavior consultant who uses the least intrusive, minimally aversive strategy out of a set of humane and effective tactics likely to succeed in achieving a training or behavior change objective with minimal risk of producing aversive side effects. LIMA adherence also requires consultants to be adequately educated and skilled in order to ensure that the least intrusive and aversive procedure is used. 1 LIMA does not justify the use of punishment in lieu of other effective interventions and strategies. In the vast majority of cases, desired behavior change can be affected by focusing on the animal’s environment, physical well-being, and operant and classical interventions such as differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior, desensitization, and counter-conditioning.
LIMA requires trainers/consultants to work to increase the use of positive reinforcement and eliminate the use of punishment when working with animal and human clients. In order to ensure best practices, consultants should pursue and maintain competence in animal behavior consulting and training through continuing education, and hands-on experience. Trainers/consultants should not advise on problems outside the recognized boundaries of their competencies and experience. 2
Positive reinforcement should be the first line of teaching, training, and behavior change program considered, and should be applied consistently. Positive reinforcement is associated with the lowest incidence of aggression, attention seeking, avoidance, and fear in learners. 3 Only the learner determines what may be reinforcing. It is crucial that the trainer/consultant understands and has the ability to appropriately apply this principle. This fact may mean that the trainer/consultant assesses any handling, petting, food, tool, and environment each time the learner experiences them. Personal bias must not determine the learner’s experience. The measure of each stimulus is whether the learner’s target behavior is strengthening or weakening, not the trainer/consultant’s intent or preference.
The trainer/consultant is responsible for ensuring learner success through a consistent, systematic approach that identifies a specific target behavior, the purpose of that behavior, and the consequences that maintain the behavior. A variety of learning and behavior change strategies may come into play during a case. Ethical use of this variety always depends on the trainer/consultant’s ability to adequately problem solve and to understand the impact of each action on the learner, as well as sensitivity toward the learner’s experience.
We seek to prevent the abuses and potential repercussions of inappropriate, poorly applied, and inhumane uses of punishment and of overly-restrictive management and confinement strategies. The potential effects of punishment can include aggression or counter-aggression; suppressed behavior (preventing the trainer/consultant from adequately reading the animal); increased anxiety and fear; physical harm; a negative association with the owner or handler; increased unwanted behavior; and, new, unwanted behaviors. 5
LIMA guidelines require that trainer/consultants always offer the learner as much control and choice as possible. Trainer/consultants must treat each individual of any species with respect and awareness of the learner’s individual nature, preferences, abilities, and needs. 6
We focus on reinforcing desired behaviors, and always ask the question, “What do you want the animal to do?” Relying on punishment in training does not answer this question, and therefore offers no acceptable behavior for the animal to learn to replace the unwanted behavior. These LIMA guidelines do not justify the use of aversive methods and tools including, but not limited to, the use of electronic, choke or prong collars in lieu of other effective positive reinforcement interventions and strategies.
Intrusiveness refers to the degree to which a procedure affects the learners control. With a less intrusive procedure, a learner retains more control. The goal of LIMA is for its trainers/consultants to determine and use the least intrusive effective intervention which will effectively address the target behavior. In the course of an experienced trainer/consultant’s practice, he or she may identify a situation in which a relatively more intrusive procedure is necessary for an effective outcome. In such a case, a procedure that reduces the learner’s control may be the least intrusive, effective choice. Additionally, wellness is at the top of the hierarchy to ensure that a trainer/consultant does not implement a learning solution for behavior problems due to pain or illness. The hierarchy is a cautionary tool to reduce both dogmatic rule following and practice by familiarity or convenience. It offers an ethical checkpoint for consultants to carefully consider the process by which effective outcomes can be most humanely achieved on a case-by-case basis. The hierarchy is intended to be approached in order for each case. Rationale like, “It worked with the last case!” is not appropriate. The evaluation and behavior change program of every animal should be a study of the individual (i.e., individual animal, setting, caregiver, etc.). Changing behavior is best understood as a study of one.
Section 2
Humane Hierarchy
The Humane Hierarchy serves to guide professionals in their decision-making process during training and behavior modification. Additionally, it assists owners and animal care professionals in understanding the standard of care to be applied in determining training practices and methodologies and the order of implementation for applying those training practices and methodologies. Hierarchy of Procedures for Humane and Effective Practice
1.
Health, nutritional, and physical factors: Ensure that any indicators for possible medical, nutritional, or health factors are addressed by a licensed veterinarian. The consultant should also address potential factors in the physical environment.
2.
Antecedents: Redesign setting events, change motivations, and add or remove discriminative stimuli (cues) for the problem behavior.
3.
Positive Reinforcement: Employ approaches that contingently deliver a consequence to increase the probability that the desired behavior will occur.
4.
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior: Reinforce an acceptable replacement behavior and remove the maintaining reinforcer for the problem behavior.
5.
Negative Punishment, Negative Reinforcement, or Extinction (these are not listed in any order of preference):
a
Negative Punishment – Contingently withdraw a positive reinforcer to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.
b
Negative Reinforcement – Contingently withdraw an aversive antecedent stimulus to increase the probability that the right behavior will occur.
c
Extinction – Permanently remove the maintaining reinforcer to suppress the behavior or reduce it to baseline levels.
6.
Positive Punishment: Contingently deliver an aversive consequence to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.
Section 2
Humane Hierarchy
The Humane Hierarchy serves to guide professionals in their decision-making process during training and behavior modification. Additionally, it assists owners and animal care professionals in understanding the standard of care to be applied in determining training practices and methodologies and the order of implementation for applying those training practices and methodologies. Hierarchy of Procedures for Humane and Effective Practice
1.
Health, nutritional, and physical factors: Ensure that any indicators for possible medical, nutritional, or health factors are addressed by a licensed veterinarian. The consultant should also address potential factors in the physical environment.
2.
Antecedents: Redesign setting events, change motivations, and add or remove discriminative stimuli (cues) for the problem behavior.
3.
Positive Reinforcement: Employ approaches that contingently deliver a consequence to increase the probability that the desired behavior will occur.
4.
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior: Reinforce an acceptable replacement behavior and remove the maintaining reinforcer for the problem behavior.
5.
Negative Punishment, Negative Reinforcement, or Extinction (these are not listed in any order of preference):
a)
Negative Punishment – Contingently withdraw a positive reinforcer to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.
b)
Negative Reinforcement – Contingently withdraw an aversive antecedent stimulus to increase the probability that the right behavior will occur.
c)
Extinction – Permanently remove the maintaining reinforcer to suppress the behavior or reduce it to baseline levels.
6.
Positive Punishment: Contingently deliver an aversive consequence to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.
Section 2
Humane Hierarchy
The Humane Hierarchy serves to guide professionals in their decision-making process during training and behavior modification. Additionally, it assists owners and animal care professionals in understanding the standard of care to be applied in determining training practices and methodologies and the order of implementation for applying those training practices and methodologies. Hierarchy of Procedures for Humane and Effective Practice
1.
Health, nutritional, and physical factors: Ensure that any indicators for possible medical, nutritional, or health factors are addressed by a licensed veterinarian. The consultant should also address potential factors in the physical environment.
2.
Antecedents: Redesign setting events, change motivations, and add or remove discriminative stimuli (cues) for the problem behavior.
3.
Positive Reinforcement: Employ approaches that contingently deliver a consequence to increase the probability that the desired behavior will occur.
4.
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior: Reinforce an acceptable replacement behavior and remove the maintaining reinforcer for the problem behavior.
5.
Negative Punishment, Negative Reinforcement, or Extinction (these are not listed in any order of preference):
a)
Negative Punishment – Contingently withdraw a positive reinforcer to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.
b)
Negative Reinforcement – Contingently withdraw an aversive antecedent stimulus to increase the probability that the right behavior will occur.
c)
Extinction – Permanently remove the maintaining reinforcer to suppress the behavior or reduce it to baseline levels.
6.
Positive Punishment: Contingently deliver an aversive consequence to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.
Section 3
Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective (LIFE)
In the last few decades, we have witnessed a greater concern for the ethics of animal training procedures, which is likely generated by and generates continued welfare-minded animal training research. Our goal in driving future ethical animal training practices should be to provide models that directly connect to both science and practice. The LIFE framework fosters such a connection between the animal welfare and behavioral sciences, as well as current reward-based training practices. Another important component of the LIFE model is to rely on a simple yet accurate description of the critical features of modern ethical animal training practices. The acronym emphasizes the important points, including (1) increasing meaningful choices, (2) identifying behavioral functions, and (3) maximizing training success. Parsimony in the model is reached by keeping the concepts as simple yet as accurate as possible. Finally, continued research should be used to modify and expand any modern animal training models and applications. Scientific theory and practice are reliant on regular change, and ethical animal training practices should follow a similar path. It is up to us as welfare scientists and practitioners to adjust our training knowledge accordingly. ~ Dr. Eduardo J. Fernandez
Introduction
In the last few decades, we have observed major changes in the ethics and application of modern animal training practices. For instance, we have seen formalized descriptions of reward-based or force-free training methods, including detailed plans to use such procedures (Millikan, 2012, Todd, 2018, Ziv, 2017). Researchers have examined and compared the use of reinforcement-based training protocols to traditional training methods that rely on aversive tools, such as shock collars, with the former more typically outperforming the latter (Cooper et al., 2014, China et al., 2020, de Castro et al., 2020). We have seen documented demonstrations of the ability with which reward-based principles can be applied to modify animal behavior ethically, reliably, and voluntarily, including with exotic animals in zoos (Grandin et al., 1995, Fernandez and Timberlake, 2008, Melfi et al., 2020).
While clear changes in both the practices and philosophy of modern animal training procedures have occurred, there have also been two major hurdles for continued progress: (1) resistance from traditional or “balanced” trainers that regularly rely on aversive tools, and (2) a lack of a coherent and concise model to detail the important features of ethical animal training practices. The former problem is expected, as resistance to change is a common obstacle for any proposed modification to any field. The latter, however, can create considerable problems, particularly if a proposed model to describe some philosophical approach is not simple and clear enough to convey the important and necessary information (Popper, 1985, Refsgaard and Henriksen, 2004). Therefore, a critical feature for effectively describing modern animal training and behavior change procedures should be a simple framework that connects theory, science, and practice. In other words, the framework should accurately detail both how to think about and do ethical animal training.
The Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive Model (LIMA)
LIMA was first described in Lindsay’s (2005) third volume of his Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training series. Over the last 18 years, LIMA has become one of the most commonly used ways for force-free trainers to describe their training practices. In addition, LIMA has been used to describe codes of ethics, industry standards, position statements, and standards of practice by the joint standards of training organizations, which include the Association for Pet Dog Trainers (APDT, 2017), the Certification Council for Pet Dog Trainers (CCPDT, 2019), the International Association for Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC, n.d.), and the Karen Pryor Academy (KPA, 2019). LIMA has therefore come to represent a broad approach of training methods that minimize, if not altogether avoid, the use of aversive training tools, which would include shock, choke, and prong collars used in dog training practices (Fernandes et al., 2017, Ziv, 2017, Todd, 2018, Lattal and Fernandez, 2022). While LIMA has proven useful as a simple means for generally describing a force-free training philosophy, there are several concerns with this approach, which include: (1) a lack of clarity in the terminology used, (2) ambiguity in desired training approaches, and (3) a history of justifying aversive training methods.
The Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective Model (LIFE)
There are several factors that any description of a force-free animal training model should incorporate. Specifically, these should include using terminology that is both representative of current training methods and the science behind it, recognition of both desired and undesired training practices, and identification of how we define success. This is addressed in three parts: (1) increasing choice by inhibiting less, (2) the importance of function, and (3) defining success as more than being effective. All three points should facilitate connecting training practices and the LIFE model directly to modern animal welfare theory and evidence-based practice.
Defining success as more than being effective
How we define success needs to be more than simply being effective (Friedman, 2008). If we only define the success of any training procedure by whether it changes behavior or not, then any practice, ethical or not, can be deemed successful. Therefore, effectiveness should only be one component of training success, in addition to connection to the function of behavior (Van Houten et al., 1988). We can think of the latter part of the LIFE model as both independently important terms (i.e., function and effect), as well as essential when combined. In other words,
- function = identification of cause
- effect = behavior change (through training)
- functionally effective = training ethically matching behavior change to its cause.
Therefore, being “functionally effective” means identifying behavioral function and using that knowledge to have an effect. Training success is defined by both being effective with our procedure and basing our procedure on an understanding and implementation of changes to the causal events. In addition, where ethics becomes critical, is how any training procedure considers the effect of training on the animal. “Functionally effective” also means how training affects overall animal welfare, including animal-trainer interactions. This can and should include all welfare considerations, including affective states, natural histories, and the physical health of the animal (Fraser, 2008, Novack et al., 2023). Force-free training, as a philosophy, should connect to our understanding of animal welfare, which, as a result, means having a better understanding of the animals with which we interact.
Section 3
Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective (LIFE)
In the last few decades, we have witnessed a greater concern for the ethics of animal training procedures, which is likely generated by and generates continued welfare-minded animal training research. Our goal in driving future ethical animal training practices should be to provide models that directly connect to both science and practice. The LIFE framework fosters such a connection between the animal welfare and behavioral sciences, as well as current reward-based training practices. Another important component of the LIFE model is to rely on a simple yet accurate description of the critical features of modern ethical animal training practices. The acronym emphasizes the important points, including (1) increasing meaningful choices, (2) identifying behavioral functions, and (3) maximizing training success. Parsimony in the model is reached by keeping the concepts as simple yet as accurate as possible. Finally, continued research should be used to modify and expand any modern animal training models and applications. Scientific theory and practice are reliant on regular change, and ethical animal training practices should follow a similar path. It is up to us as welfare scientists and practitioners to adjust our training knowledge accordingly. ~ Dr. Eduardo J. Fernandez
Introduction
In the last few decades, we have observed major changes in the ethics and application of modern animal training practices. For instance, we have seen formalized descriptions of reward-based or force-free training methods, including detailed plans to use such procedures (Millikan, 2012, Todd, 2018, Ziv, 2017). Researchers have examined and compared the use of reinforcement-based training protocols to traditional training methods that rely on aversive tools, such as shock collars, with the former more typically outperforming the latter (Cooper et al., 2014, China et al., 2020, de Castro et al., 2020). We have seen documented demonstrations of the ability with which reward-based principles can be applied to modify animal behavior ethically, reliably, and voluntarily, including with exotic animals in zoos (Grandin et al., 1995, Fernandez and Timberlake, 2008, Melfi et al., 2020).
While clear changes in both the practices and philosophy of modern animal training procedures have occurred, there have also been two major hurdles for continued progress: (1) resistance from traditional or “balanced” trainers that regularly rely on aversive tools, and (2) a lack of a coherent and concise model to detail the important features of ethical animal training practices. The former problem is expected, as resistance to change is a common obstacle for any proposed modification to any field. The latter, however, can create considerable problems, particularly if a proposed model to describe some philosophical approach is not simple and clear enough to convey the important and necessary information (Popper, 1985, Refsgaard and Henriksen, 2004). Therefore, a critical feature for effectively describing modern animal training and behavior change procedures should be a simple framework that connects theory, science, and practice. In other words, the framework should accurately detail both how to think about and do ethical animal training.
The Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive Model (LIMA)
LIMA was first described in Lindsay’s (2005) third volume of his Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training series. Over the last 18 years, LIMA has become one of the most commonly used ways for force-free trainers to describe their training practices. In addition, LIMA has been used to describe codes of ethics, industry standards, position statements, and standards of practice by the joint standards of training organizations, which include the Association for Pet Dog Trainers (APDT, 2017), the Certification Council for Pet Dog Trainers (CCPDT, 2019), the International Association for Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC, n.d.), and the Karen Pryor Academy (KPA, 2019). LIMA has therefore come to represent a broad approach of training methods that minimize, if not altogether avoid, the use of aversive training tools, which would include shock, choke, and prong collars used in dog training practices (Fernandes et al., 2017, Ziv, 2017, Todd, 2018, Lattal and Fernandez, 2022). While LIMA has proven useful as a simple means for generally describing a force-free training philosophy, there are several concerns with this approach, which include: (1) a lack of clarity in the terminology used, (2) ambiguity in desired training approaches, and (3) a history of justifying aversive training methods.
One of the biggest problems for the LIMA approach is the justification it has enabled for regularly using aversive stimuli or coercive training methods. Some of this is historical, which becomes more evident as we go back to Lindsay’s original statements. For instance:
“According to the least intrusive and minimally aversive (LIMA) model, aversives are ranked in terms of their relative severity and intrusiveness, requiring that the trainer apply a less aversive technique before advancing to a more aversive one.” (p. 29).
Thus, Lindsay was making an argument for the use of coercive training techniques, with his handbook providing pictures and descriptions of various aversive training tools. For example, in another description, Lindsay states:
“The proper use of the prong collar as a shaping and polishing tool requires significant instruction, but with respect to basic control uses novice trainers can rapidly master the prong collar.” (p. 31).
What becomes clear in these statements is that LIMA was not intended to be an attempt to minimize the use of aversive stimuli, as many modern force-free trainers have conceptualized. Instead, Lindsay intended LIMA to be a framework to help trainers select their aversive stimuli and tools. As one of the latter statements in the handbook concludes:
“Aversive procedures are legitimate and valuable tools for controlling undesirable behavior…” (p. 725).
While LIMA has been a useful, simple philosophy to help identify and describe a reward-based, force-free animal training approach, it also has the aforementioned drawbacks. Nonetheless, these criticisms should be viewed as ways to help the animal training field and force-free training philosophy move forward. All fields adjust their principles in order to advance, and progress is typically made by identification of what should be done next. Therefore, the section below details a potential new force-free training philosophy.
The Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective Model (LIFE)
There are several factors that any description of a force-free animal training model should incorporate. Specifically, these should include using terminology that is both representative of current training methods and the science behind it, recognition of both desired and undesired training practices, and identification of how we define success. This is addressed in three parts: (1) increasing choice by inhibiting less, (2) the importance of function, and (3) defining success as more than being effective. All three points should facilitate connecting training practices and the LIFE model directly to modern animal welfare theory and evidence-based practice.
Defining success as more than being effective
How we define success needs to be more than simply being effective (Friedman, 2008). If we only define the success of any training procedure by whether it changes behavior or not, then any practice, ethical or not, can be deemed successful. Therefore, effectiveness should only be one component of training success, in addition to connection to the function of behavior (Van Houten et al., 1988). We can think of the latter part of the LIFE model as both independently important terms (i.e., function and effect), as well as essential when combined. In other words,
- function = identification of cause
- effect = behavior change (through training)
- functionally effective = training ethically matching behavior change to its cause.
Therefore, being “functionally effective” means identifying behavioral function and using that knowledge to have an effect. Training success is defined by both being effective with our procedure and basing our procedure on an understanding and implementation of changes to the causal events. In addition, where ethics becomes critical, is how any training procedure considers the effect of training on the animal. “Functionally effective” also means how training affects overall animal welfare, including animal-trainer interactions. This can and should include all welfare considerations, including affective states, natural histories, and the physical health of the animal (Fraser, 2008, Novack et al., 2023). Force-free training, as a philosophy, should connect to our understanding of animal welfare, which, as a result, means having a better understanding of the animals with which we interact.
Eduardo J. Fernandez,
The least inhibitive, functionally effective (LIFE) model: A new framework for ethical animal training practices,
Journal of Veterinary Behavior,
Volume 71,
2024,
Pages 63-68,
ISSN 1558-7878,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2023.12.001
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558787823001430)
Section 3
Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective (LIFE)
In the last few decades, we have witnessed a greater concern for the ethics of animal training procedures, which is likely generated by and generates continued welfare-minded animal training research. Our goal in driving future ethical animal training practices should be to provide models that directly connect to both science and practice. The LIFE framework fosters such a connection between the animal welfare and behavioral sciences, as well as current reward-based training practices. Another important component of the LIFE model is to rely on a simple yet accurate description of the critical features of modern ethical animal training practices. The acronym emphasizes the important points, including (1) increasing meaningful choices, (2) identifying behavioral functions, and (3) maximizing training success. Parsimony in the model is reached by keeping the concepts as simple yet as accurate as possible. Finally, continued research should be used to modify and expand any modern animal training models and applications. Scientific theory and practice are reliant on regular change, and ethical animal training practices should follow a similar path. It is up to us as welfare scientists and practitioners to adjust our training knowledge accordingly. ~ Dr. Eduardo J. Fernandez
Introduction
In the last few decades, we have observed major changes in the ethics and application of modern animal training practices. For instance, we have seen formalized descriptions of reward-based or force-free training methods, including detailed plans to use such procedures (Millikan, 2012, Todd, 2018, Ziv, 2017). Researchers have examined and compared the use of reinforcement-based training protocols to traditional training methods that rely on aversive tools, such as shock collars, with the former more typically outperforming the latter (Cooper et al., 2014, China et al., 2020, de Castro et al., 2020). We have seen documented demonstrations of the ability with which reward-based principles can be applied to modify animal behavior ethically, reliably, and voluntarily, including with exotic animals in zoos (Grandin et al., 1995, Fernandez and Timberlake, 2008, Melfi et al., 2020).
While clear changes in both the practices and philosophy of modern animal training procedures have occurred, there have also been two major hurdles for continued progress: (1) resistance from traditional or “balanced” trainers that regularly rely on aversive tools, and (2) a lack of a coherent and concise model to detail the important features of ethical animal training practices. The former problem is expected, as resistance to change is a common obstacle for any proposed modification to any field. The latter, however, can create considerable problems, particularly if a proposed model to describe some philosophical approach is not simple and clear enough to convey the important and necessary information (Popper, 1985, Refsgaard and Henriksen, 2004). Therefore, a critical feature for effectively describing modern animal training and behavior change procedures should be a simple framework that connects theory, science, and practice. In other words, the framework should accurately detail both how to think about and do ethical animal training.
The Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive Model (LIMA)
LIMA was first described in Lindsay’s (2005) third volume of his Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training series. Over the last 18 years, LIMA has become one of the most commonly used ways for force-free trainers to describe their training practices. In addition, LIMA has been used to describe codes of ethics, industry standards, position statements, and standards of practice by the joint standards of training organizations, which include the Association for Pet Dog Trainers (APDT, 2017), the Certification Council for Pet Dog Trainers (CCPDT, 2019), the International Association for Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC, n.d.), and the Karen Pryor Academy (KPA, 2019). LIMA has therefore come to represent a broad approach of training methods that minimize, if not altogether avoid, the use of aversive training tools, which would include shock, choke, and prong collars used in dog training practices (Fernandes et al., 2017, Ziv, 2017, Todd, 2018, Lattal and Fernandez, 2022). While LIMA has proven useful as a simple means for generally describing a force-free training philosophy, there are several concerns with this approach, which include: (1) a lack of clarity in the terminology used, (2) ambiguity in desired training approaches, and (3) a history of justifying aversive training methods.
One of the biggest problems for the LIMA approach is the justification it has enabled for regularly using aversive stimuli or coercive training methods. Some of this is historical, which becomes more evident as we go back to Lindsay’s original statements. For instance:
“According to the least intrusive and minimally aversive (LIMA) model, aversives are ranked in terms of their relative severity and intrusiveness, requiring that the trainer apply a less aversive technique before advancing to a more aversive one.” (p. 29).
Thus, Lindsay was making an argument for the use of coercive training techniques, with his handbook providing pictures and descriptions of various aversive training tools. For example, in another description, Lindsay states:
“The proper use of the prong collar as a shaping and polishing tool requires significant instruction, but with respect to basic control uses novice trainers can rapidly master the prong collar.” (p. 31).
What becomes clear in these statements is that LIMA was not intended to be an attempt to minimize the use of aversive stimuli, as many modern force-free trainers have conceptualized. Instead, Lindsay intended LIMA to be a framework to help trainers select their aversive stimuli and tools. As one of the latter statements in the handbook concludes:
“Aversive procedures are legitimate and valuable tools for controlling undesirable behavior…” (p. 725).
While LIMA has been a useful, simple philosophy to help identify and describe a reward-based, force-free animal training approach, it also has the aforementioned drawbacks. Nonetheless, these criticisms should be viewed as ways to help the animal training field and force-free training philosophy move forward. All fields adjust their principles in order to advance, and progress is typically made by identification of what should be done next. Therefore, the section below details a potential new force-free training philosophy.
The Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective Model (LIFE)
There are several factors that any description of a force-free animal training model should incorporate. Specifically, these should include using terminology that is both representative of current training methods and the science behind it, recognition of both desired and undesired training practices, and identification of how we define success. This is addressed in three parts: (1) increasing choice by inhibiting less, (2) the importance of function, and (3) defining success as more than being effective. All three points should facilitate connecting training practices and the LIFE model directly to modern animal welfare theory and evidence-based practice.
Defining success as more than being effective
How we define success needs to be more than simply being effective (Friedman, 2008). If we only define the success of any training procedure by whether it changes behavior or not, then any practice, ethical or not, can be deemed successful. Therefore, effectiveness should only be one component of training success, in addition to connection to the function of behavior (Van Houten et al., 1988). We can think of the latter part of the LIFE model as both independently important terms (i.e., function and effect), as well as essential when combined. In other words,
- function = identification of cause
- effect = behavior change (through training)
- functionally effective = training ethically matching behavior change to its cause.
Therefore, being “functionally effective” means identifying behavioral function and using that knowledge to have an effect. Training success is defined by both being effective with our procedure and basing our procedure on an understanding and implementation of changes to the causal events. In addition, where ethics becomes critical, is how any training procedure considers the effect of training on the animal. “Functionally effective” also means how training affects overall animal welfare, including animal-trainer interactions. This can and should include all welfare considerations, including affective states, natural histories, and the physical health of the animal (Fraser, 2008, Novack et al., 2023). Force-free training, as a philosophy, should connect to our understanding of animal welfare, which, as a result, means having a better understanding of the animals with which we interact.
Eduardo J. Fernandez,
The least inhibitive, functionally effective (LIFE) model: A new framework for ethical animal training practices,
Journal of Veterinary Behavior,
Volume 71,
2024,
Pages 63-68,
ISSN 1558-7878,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2023.12.001
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558787823001430)