Episode 357: Dr. Stephanie Jones, Sofia Abuin and Lucy Butler Pt 3: Rules for Changing Criteria

This is Part 3 of a conversation with Lucy Butler of River Haven Animal Sanctuary, and Dr Stephanie Jones and her grad student, Sofia Abuin

Dr. Jones graduated with her PhD in Behavior Analysis from West Virginia University in 2021. Her primary research focuses on effects of implementer errors that occur during well-established behavioral treatments. To meet this aim, she conducts laboratory and applied research with the aim of supporting development of robust behavioral interventions. She started teaching and conducting research at Salve Regina University in 2021 and is the principal investigator for the Translational Research and Applied Intervention Lab.

IN PART 1 we talked about the common links between teaching people and working with animals. We talked about coercion, control, and most importantly about empathy.

In part 2 Stephanie described a pilot study she and her colleagues set up at the River Haven Animal Sanctuary. Shaping can be incredibly challenging to teach well. Often people refer to the science and the art of training. What Stephanie and her colleague Michael Yencha wanted to investigate is what makes up the “art” part of training? Is there a way to tease this apart so it becomes less mystery and more approachable through science?

Stephanie began by describing the shaping procedures they used with the goats at River Haven. In one context the criteria was changed when the goat had successfully met the current criterion three times in a row. In the second context a latency component was added. The goat had to meet the criterion within a certain time period which was determined by the goat’s own previous performance.

I described the metaphor of shaping from the wide versus the narrow end of the funnel and what it means to shape using narrow end of the funnel thinking.

In Part 3 Stephanie reminded us that the goal of this research was to help new trainers shape well. That was the reason for the latency criterion. They were using it to judge when to shift criteria. They weren’t looking at any other aspects of shaping. They weren’t looking at the details of the reinforcement strategy or the set up of the environment. They weren’t saying those elements aren’t important, but they wanted to focus on this one component and give it a good rule.

The question was how do you get robust interventions that aren’t influenced by implementor errors? Even in art there is technique.

If you give people this rule, does that mean learners will be better off because shapers are able to minimize exposure to extinction without even needing to know what it means to minimize exposure to extinction? Can new trainers shape well even when they are lacking experience and a broad theoretical background?