Gradual Desensitization and Counter Conditioning: Too little, too late

Author: Gary Wilkes
From a presentation at the Central Veterinary Conference, San Diego 2010

In the world of modern behavior therapy, there are two popular mainstays – gradual desensitization and counter conditioning. If a dog is terrified of thunderstorms, one plays back a sound recording of thunder at very low volume and “desensitizes” the dog to the thunder over a long period of time. Counter Conditioning refers to replacing a currently objectionable behavior with an acceptable behavior. Though widely used and recommended, these tools have very limited ability to control unacceptable companion animal behavior.

Continue reading

Operant Modalities: Alternatives to Psychotropic drugs – Presentation for CVC, Washington DC By Gary Wilkes

One aspect of veterinary behavioral therapy is the use of psychotropic drugs to control behavior. To set the context for my comments, I am not a veterinarian. I do not claim any direct working knowledge of these drugs – but I routinely work with animals that do. Note: This presentation is not about abandoning or curtailing the use of chemical therapy for treating behavior problems. Diagnosis and treatment with psychotropic drugs is often a needed component for a dog’s sustained mental health. The goal of this presentation is to offer a different perspective and potential solutions that dovetail standard medical diagnosis and treatment.

Continue reading

Political Correctness and actually caring about the fate of dogs.

Imagine your dog becomes epileptic. Your vet says that you have to record each seizure, how long it lasts and some general details. How long will you do this? If you are Sandy Duxberry, you’ll do it 24/7 for two years until Gypsy is seizing constantly. Your life is a shambles from lack of sleep, the pain of watching your dog go through writhing, mindless seizures and spending 80% of your waking time taking care of your dog. That is one end of the spectrum.

Continue reading

Left or Right: You make the call.

 

The chart above signifies something. First, you have to know that this is a standard celeration chart. The horizontal lines increase logarithmically. Meaning from the baseline to the first line is 10. From the first line to the second line is 100. Next is 1,000 and the final one is 10,000. The individual human in this study is doing an undesired behavior, such as self-injury, up to 100 times a day. More than 5 per hour. The left side of the chart shows the use of positive methods to control the behavior. (That is the meaning of “positive programming” in this example.) The chart below shows the full cumulative record after a change in treatment. It shows a dramatic drop in the behavior. What was the change? The introduction of contingent punishment in the form of skin-shock. Meaning if you do X (pound your eyes) you will be shocked. If you do not do X you will not be shocked. Continue reading

Faster isn’t better…or is it?

In the litany of illogical excuses to ban and condemn punishment one is especially ludicrous and most often deceitful and malicious. That rule is “faster isn’t better”. This is usually stated in the context that people who use punishment use it as a short-cut, because it’s easier. Then it is stated that positive methods are “better” somehow because they take longer. Continue reading