<\/p>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/eileenanddogs.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Avoidance-collage.jpeg\")
<\/a>To email subscribers: I have changed my notification service again, which means that you may have to unsubscribe again if you did so from the previous email. I apologize. I hate bothering people. I am now locked into a service for a year so this won\u2019t likely happen again. <\/em><\/p>\n I propose that \u201cfallout\u201d may be in the eyes of the beholder. I know that sounds weird, but bear with me and see what you think.<\/p>\n Over 10 years ago, I published a blog page on fallout from the use of aversives in training<\/a>. It lists definitions and descriptions of the types of fallout that can result from aversive use, all with citations from the literature. It\u2019s a simple page, and a popular one.<\/p>\n But I didn\u2019t define fallout. It wasn\u2019t until recently that I realized I had missed that very important point.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s go!<\/p>\n I couldn\u2019t find a definition in any behavior science textbook, and I think I know why. I\u2019ll get to that later. For now, here is a dictionary definition<\/a>, which references physics.<\/p>\n Fallout<\/em> 2 : a secondary and often lingering effect, result, or set of consequences<\/p>\n Dr. Murray Sidman popularized the term \u201cfallout\u201d in behavior science in his book, Coercion and Its Fallout<\/em> (1989). I couldn\u2019t find substantial references to the term in the literature before that. (Someone please correct me if I\u2019m wrong.) He used the term in the sense of the second definition above, but he referenced the first definition. The usage spread across the behavior world.<\/p>\n The following is the closest I could find to an actual definition in Sidman\u2019s book.<\/p>\n A nuclear explosion\u2019s side effects\u2014the extensive radioactive fallout\u2014cause both immediate and long-delayed, but lasting human misery. The suffering that the fallout produces overwhelms any positive benefits of a victory that nuclear warfare accomplishes. The side effects of punishment, too, far from being secondary, often have considerably greater behavioral significance than the hoped for \u201cmain effects.\u201d \u2014 Sidman, 1989, p. 81<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s accurate to characterize fallout as \u201cside effects.\u201d<\/a> Sidman emphasized the \u201clong-lasting\u201d part.<\/p>\n Side effect<\/em> Note that Dr. Sidman\u2019s book was aimed at lay people. It has few references and no reference list, and although it uses some technical language, it\u2019s conversational and full of examples that apply to everyday life.<\/p>\n I\u2019m going to start with one of my own.<\/p>\n This is a hard story to tell.<\/p>\n When I was in a Novice obedience class with my dog Summer many years ago, the instructors set up an exercise based on the training methods of the Volhards. We were to heel our dogs by a man who would wave a treat at them. If the dog turned to go for the food, we were to pop their collar with a jerk of the leash. The goal was to punish moving out of position when faced with a tempting distraction. (I won\u2019t editorialize about the fact that we hadn\u2019t taught our dogs yet not to take available food.)<\/p>\n I did as told. Summer yelped and cringed when I popped her collar. I felt awful and didn\u2019t want to do the exercise a second time, but, to my everlasting shame, I did. The second time, Summer\u2019s body language wilted when she saw the man, and she dodged behind me and moved to my right side to avoid him. I was heartbroken and full of guilt that she trusted me to protect her when I was the one who had hurt her. I walked her away from the man. This experience was a turning point in my training. I could not and would not do that again.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s allow poor Summer\u2019s story to help us with analysis. The intent of the exercise was 1) for the dog to learn to stay in heel position because 2) the behavior of moving toward a distraction was punished. The latter was successful. Summer didn\u2019t go for the food the second time. But Summer did not stay in heel position either, which was the overall goal. The fallout, the \u201cunintended side effects,\u201d were avoidance that took her out of heel position and an enduring fear of the man who had held the treat. Besides the obvious tragedy for my dog, fear of a man standing in a competition ring is not a sought-after situation. This was clearly unintended by the instructors as well.<\/p>\n For an example of more extreme fallout, check out this post<\/a>.<\/p>\n Now here\u2019s an odd thing. As positive reinforcement-based trainers, we may conflate the direct, \u201csuccessful\u201d punishment of a behavior with fallout, because they often look the same. We\u2019re actually not wrong. Often, they are<\/em> the same\u2014the same behavior. We don\u2019t intend<\/em> to use positive punishment, but sometimes it happens by accident<\/a>. We may see, as a result, avoidance behaviors that we did not intend. The difference between an \u201ceffect\u201d and a \u201cside effect\u201d is intent.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s say Lucine decides to use an indoor invisible shock barrier to prevent her dog, Jackson, from coming through the kitchen doorway during food prep and human mealtimes. (In case it\u2019s not clear, this is an awful idea.) Jackson quickly learns that going through the doorway results in a shock. His behavior of walking through the doorway decreases. We would see avoidance of the doorway, Sidman\u2019s \u201cmain effect\u201d of the punishment.<\/p>\n But Jackson might also stop going through the kitchen doorway even when invited\u2014a side effect. Lucine intended<\/em> for Jackson to stay away only during human mealtimes, but Jackson won\u2019t go near the door anytime. This could be characterized as fallout. It\u2019s the same avoidance behavior, but it was unintended. I think this is why fallout is not a defined term in behavior science; determining whether a behavior is \u201cintended\u201d or \u201cunintended,\u201d or even whether it is adverse, is subjective. Even Sidman didn\u2019t use \u201cfallout\u201d in his myriad scholarly papers.<\/p>\n Some of the more brutal trainers on social media don\u2019t seem to care at all when a dog is trembling or cowering in fear. We\u2019d call that fallout, but they probably wouldn\u2019t. Someone who values shut-down dogs will find this fallout acceptable, even desirable.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Going further with Jackson: other examples of fallout in this situation could be if he refused to walk through other<\/em> doorways or walk on flooring that resembled<\/em> the tile in Lucine\u2019s kitchen. If Lucine was standing near the doorway a few times when Jackson was shocked, then he might avoid her as well. More behaviors than just walking through Lucine\u2019s kitchen doorway were punished.<\/p>\n This fallout is an example of generalization of avoidance, #1 on my list from the fallout from aversives page<\/a>.<\/p>\n The above is a true story with the names changed. Jackson also developed stress colitis that strongly correlated with the use of the indoor shock\u2014more fallout. This would correlate with #7 on the fallout list<\/a>: injury. The correlation with the shock was strong: his colitis resolved whenever he was boarded away from home.<\/p>\n I looked for discussion online by balanced trainers who might be concerned about fallout from aversive methods. I found one mention, an instruction about how to use aversives without sending dogs into learned helplessness. But instead, I found many trainers claiming there were terrible problems (fallout) caused by positive reinforcement-based training.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve all seen those arguments. I tried to find specifics from them about why a specific training method<\/strong> caused a specific problem behavior<\/strong>. I didn\u2019t find any such specificity. Just general complaints about \u201cpermissiveness\u201d and claims that the balanced folks were the saviors of all the dogs the \u201cpurely positive\u201d folks had damaged. <\/p>\n Is there fallout from positive reinforcement in the sense I talk about above? Behavioral side effects of positive reinforcement training? Maybe even negative ones?<\/p>\n There can be unintended effects. Please read on. If you are like me, they are not what you might have assumed.<\/p>\n There is an interesting article that talks about the \u201cparallel\u201d side effects of aversive and appetitive stimuli\/training (Balsam & Bondy, 1983). In the article, they list, with citations, many documented side effects of aversive control. Then they go through these side effects and identify parallels\/opposites as side effects of appetitive control.<\/p>\n Before I go on, there is also an excellent rebuttal to this article by Epstein (1985), who points out the authors\u2019 logical fallacy of claiming that the effects of reinforcement and punishment are parallel. According to Epstein, if they were truly parallel, then reinforcement should have positive (as in desirable) side effects, not negative. But I do appreciate their lists of side effects, however we characterize them.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s one example: a classic side effect of aversive use is avoidance. Avoidance of the aversive stimulus itself, the person associated with it, the location, etc. The parallel side effect of appetitive use is approach. Organisms move toward appetitive stimuli (or, if they\u2019re not mobile, have another strategy that brings the stimuli close to them). It\u2019s hard to think of approach as a bad thing. So many of us who own or work with fearful dogs are delighted when we build positive enough associations that the animal will approach.<\/p>\n But approach, especially persistent approach, can be a training challenge.<\/p>\n You see this with trainers who work with zoo animals, equines, or larger dogs. An experienced zoo trainer will teach the big (or prickly, or toothsome) animal in protected contact, maintaining that setup as long as necessary for safety. A skilled positive reinforcement-based equine trainer will teach a horse not to mug and push for the food\u2014first thing. They may also start in protected contact.<\/p>\n You will also see methods by wildlife rehabbers to prevent animals from learning to associate humans with available food. If an animal is to be released, we don\u2019t want it to get attracted to humans. Rehabbers have various mechanisms to prevent the \u201cperson predicts food\u201d association. Approach to humans by many wild animals can lead to their quick injury or death.<\/p>\n The images below show a more ordinary problem. This was young Lewis\u2019 first full day in my home. He was desperately needy and trying to figure out how to get positive attention. The Balsam & Bondy article mentions \u201cclinginess\u201d as a problem associated with approach. This was a problem\u2014for about a day. That\u2019s how long it took him to learn how to interact in a way that works better for humans and got him access to the attention and goodies he craved. This is not comparable to the long-term side effects of aversive use discussed by Sidman.<\/p>\n Persistent approach might be good or bad, depending on the trainer\u2019s goals and the stage of the training. This means that I disagree with the title of the Balsam & Bondy article, \u201cThe Negative Side Effects of Reward,\u201d (1983) and agree with Epstein\u2019s opinion. But even with those disagreements, the article is worth reading. It has a unique comparison of some effects of appetitive and aversive training. And a bonus: this article, like several others<\/a>, does not<\/strong> say what the anti-positive reinforcement crowd implies it does because of the title. It\u2019s good to get acquainted with the content.<\/p>\n I said there were \u201cunintended\u201d side effects. That\u2019s true for a lot of us. But the really great trainers know to expect them, and they use them as part of their training plans from the beginning.<\/p>\n I believe Sidman used the word \u201cfallout\u201d and its intensely negative connotations to communicate with a lay audience. It\u2019s important to keep in mind that avoidance is a functional response. So is generalization of avoidance, which we generally call fallout. But generalization, throwing a wide net of what to avoid, is what allows many wild animals to survive. I would guess that it\u2019s not \u201cfallout\u201d to them.<\/p>\n But wild animals live in a world of many dangers. Our pets and other animals under our care do not (or should not).<\/p>\n I think the main takeaway is that when we are training or interacting with our companion animals, using aversive methods causes suffering\u2014for them<\/strong>. The side effects of positive reinforcement training can be inconvenient at times, generally for us<\/strong>, and they depend on our skill levels. If food is creating unwanted consequences<\/a>, a skilled trainer can generally use the same food to change the consequences. These side effects need not be long-lasting.<\/p>\n A balanced trainer I met at a trial once complained about my dogs frequently offering behaviors. To me, it\u2019s a good thing; to them it was a negative side effect, a mistake. I wasn\u2019t able to explain then that any positive reinforcement trainer more skilled than I could easily teach their dogs when it\u2019s appropriate to offer behaviors <\/a>and when it\u2019s not (a.k.a. stimulus control). Again, this is not a long-lasting problem. It\u2019s a training issue that I didn\u2019t choose to address.<\/p>\n So what do you think? I did not expect this outcome when I looked into \u201cfallout.\u201d I thought there would be an operationalizable definition, but I didn\u2019t find one. <\/p>\n Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson<\/em><\/p>\n Balsam, P. D., & Bondy, A. S. (1983). The negative side effects of reward.\u00a0Journal of applied behavior analysis<\/em>,\u00a016<\/em>(3), 283-296.<\/p>\n Epstein, R. (1985). The positive side effects of reinforcement: A commentary on Balsam and Bondy (1983).\u00a0Journal of applied behavior analysis<\/em>,\u00a018<\/em>(1), 73.<\/p>\n Sidman, M. (1989).\u00a0Coercion and its fallout<\/em>. Boston: Authors Cooperative.<\/p>\nDefinition of Fallout<\/h2>\n
1. a : the often radioactive particles stirred up by or resulting from a nuclear explosion and descending through the atmosphere
also<\/em> : other polluting particles (such as volcanic ash) descending likewise
b : descent (as of fallout) through the atmosphere<\/p>\nMurray Sidman<\/h2>\n
\n
: a secondary and usually adverse effect (as of a drug)<\/p>\nAn Example of Behavioral Fallout<\/h2>\n
<\/a>Distinguishing between Sidman\u2019s \u201cMain Effects\u201d and Fallout<\/h2>\n
Balanced Trainers and Fallout<\/h2>\n
So Is There Fallout from Positive Reinforcement?<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\nNegative, Positive, and Neutral Side Effects<\/h2>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Related Posts<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Like this:<\/h3>\n