The Cheat Code I Use in Dog Training

Why how you arrange your dog’s world matters so darn much.

From Granola to Dog Training: Why Smart Setups Matter

I used to do this really weird thing with granola: I always opened new bags before I finished the old ones. I don’t know if the opened bags just got buried in the back of the cabinet or if I was avoiding something about the bottom of the bags, but it was leading to a lot of partially eaten granola bags that eventually went stale – not ideal. One day, my husband, Ben, started combining the open bags and leaving the one that was already open on the counter instead of putting it back away in the cabinet. Suddenly, I was finishing the bags before I opened a new one. It was such a low stress way to change my behavior.

We do stuff like this in our own lives all the time. For example, I have bowls right inside the front and back door, so Ben and I are more likely to put our keys down there (as opposed to some random place we won’t think to look when we need them next) when we come home. This way of influencing behavior has a technical name and is so important when it comes to working with dogs. It’s called an antecedent arrangement–essentially changing the antecedent conditions (conditions that precede and set the stage for the behavior) to make desired behavior more likely and undesired behavior less likely.

What’s an Antecedent, Anyway? (And Why It’s So Powerful)

When we are talking about operant behavior at its most basic level, we talk about the “ABC” unit: Antecedent–Behavior–Consequence (read more on some “behavior basics” in this previous post). In 1938, Skinner introduced the operant as a three term contingency: when A-antecedent, if B-behavior, then C-consequence. Looking at this three term contingency, we could change the antecedent cue (the discriminative stimulus) to change the behavior (because changing the antecedent would change what behavior-consequence contingency was signaled). For example, you could put up window film or curtains to block the visual stimulus of people walking by to reduce the behavior of barking out the window (if the dog can’t see the people, the barking behavior may not be cued). However, we can do more than simply removing the cue (not always possible) to influence behavior when we arrange antecedents.

Distant Antecedents: Setting Events, MOs, and Why Your Dog’s History Matters

Behavior scientists have long recognized that there are other factors in addition to the stimuli in the three term contingency that may influence the likelihood of a behavior. In 1959, Kantor described setting events (originally called “setting factors”) as antecedent factors that were broader and more complex than discrete stimulus variables (like a flash of light). Settings events include factors like the individuals learning history, the broader environment, health, etc. The concept of motivating operations, or MOs for short, (a term that now tends to subsume the older “establishing and abolishing operations” terms) was introduced by Keller and Schoenfeld in 1950 and redefined and expanded by Michael in 1982. In 2007, Michael described MOs as an “environmental variable that momentarily changes the value of a consequential stimulus (e.g., reinforcer, punisher) and changes the probability of members of that functional response class.” In other words, MOs are variables that make certain consequences (reinforcers or punishers) more or less reinforcing or punishing in a given moment and therefore make the behaviors that lead to those consequences more and less likely in that moment. For a very obvious example, the value of food goes up the longer it’s been since I last consumed a meal. Thus, the longer it’s been since I had food, the more likely it becomes that I perform the behavior of opening the fridge door. You may hear people talk about both setting events and MOs, which is why I bring them up here. They are both concepts meant to address the broader antecedent phenomena that can impact operant contingencies–setting events are rooted in interbehaviorism while MOs have their roots in radical behaviorism (you can read more about their distinction in this 2015 paper from Nosik and Carr). I see MOs talked about more than setting events, but for the average person trying to support their dog, I think the key is understanding that there are distant antecedents that don’t directly cue the behavior but make it more or less likely to occur.

Let’s look at a common example. The word “come” is the discriminative stimulus for the behavior of running to you, but I am sure you’ve experienced other factors at play beyond the cue and the reinforcer that influence their behavior. For example, how long my dog, Sully, has already been on the trails walking will influence her response to the cue “come.” Early in the walk, the relative value of my reinforcers is lower (so many good sights and smells to take in). As the walk wears on, some degree of satiation with those environmental stimuli happens and suddenly my reinforcers, which are the ones signaled by my cue (“come”), go up in relative value.

It’s Not Just the Cue: The Case for Arranging the Environment

Often when people think of or talk about training, they focus on consequences – the events and stimuli that immediately follow a behavior and influence its future strength. I don’t think it’s wise to ignore consequences because they are going to happen whether we pay attention to them or not, but by thoughtfully arranging the distant antecedents (settings events, motivating operations) and/or the immediate ones (the cue or discriminative stimulus), we can make it more likely for desired behaviors to show up (and get reinforced!) and less likely for undesired ones to.

Have you ever heard people talk about meeting a dog’s needs before thinking about “training them”?