Snake Avoidance: Week 4 - Discussion on Arousal

Thanks Jamie! I'm interested in why you place the importance on arousal levels in this situation. I am used to thinking about distractions in terms of competing motivators - he is more attracted to what is (potentially) on offer behind the fence than the food I clearly have on me (same food was in the bowl behind the fence - but because he didn't really know what it was it seemed more interesting to him). He's clearly interested in the food distraction, but I would describe him as too "self interested" to respond, rather than too aroused!!

And why do you think some dogs are so compulsively drawn to explore items. Badger just HAS to go and check out anything and everything - on walks he lunges towards any novel object (litter etc) and if it is remotely edible well then he will eat it (when I got him he had zero food drive - wow, has that changed!), Sometimes he'll just pick the object up and carry it a few steps then drop it. I can ask him to Leave it and he will comply but without that request he just goes for anything. As long as he doesn't pull me, I don't stop him checking out stuff that appears harmless, because I think, well he is just being a dog and when we are walking casually he is allowed to be on his own time. But my other two are naturally reserved/timid and just aren't as drawn to things, or will approach cautiously. Is Badger is an Optimist (might be edible) whereas the girls are Pessimists (might be harmful)?

I think it's just a matter of semantics rather then description. Arousal is caused by motivators. Competing motivators is a construct someone came up with that described what was happening to their satisfaction (why would the dog want that more then this).

It all boils down to attraction, IMO, not really motivation. Motivation in my world is that which causes us to do specific actions, not what causes us to just react. It's instinctive for dogs to check things out and only bad experiences or CERs will thwart that (as in your girls). Like human babies, for puppies and dogs that never learned otherwise, everything goes in the mouth edible or not. The highest motivator is survival, which for an individual means sustenance, so you check out everything to see if it's edible.

Attraction and the resulting arousal level to get to that which attracts one is what I see. I know others define things otherwise. But I've never really understood competing motivators. It might appear that way in the humans mind as he wants the dog to like 'this one" and not "that one", but to the dog, it's attraction/affinity/curiousity and what drives one's arousal level.

When a cat runs by, it's not a motivator per se, it's just something that kicks in the chase drive, amps up the arousal level which gets the juices flowing so the chase can happen. So it's not really a competing motivator because it doesn't get the dog to do what you want, it just kicks in instinctive and evolutionary habits.

This is one of the biggest reasons that I don't think food is the highest form of reinforcement. Sure, one must eat, but one must breath first, then get water, food is third in that hierarchy. But which activity actually produces all those chemicals and hormones that get the dog moving and aroused enough to continue the activity? Chase, not eating.

So when you think about competing motivators, think instead about what drives the dog, not what motivates the dog. I've had two dogs recently that would rather tug then eat and their favorite form of tug was to chase it.

Last thought (and this really is just a jumble of thoughts) is that to have a "competing" motivator, each one of those motivators has to be motivating the SAME action, not different actions. And that's not what is happening. And motivation can't happen without arousal, without those juices flowing.