FAGEN Flashcards
BACKGROUND
Background Traditional elephant trainers (mahouts) use operant conditioning
techniques to train working elephants using punishment and negative
reinforcement.» These methods raise concerns about animal welfare and
keeper safety, so this study used rewards (rather than punishments) to teach the
elephants.» The target behaviour was a ‘trunk wash’ (a chain of behaviours
necessary to test the elephants for tuberculosis).» Secondary reinforcement
training was used to shape the necessary behaviours and then chain them
together. First, a whistle (secondary reinforcer) was associated with the
primary reinforcer (chopped bananas). The trainers then rewarded the
elephants directly after each desired behaviour, using the whistle.
PSYCH BEING INVESTIGATED
AIM
To investigate whether secondary positive reinforcement could be used to train
elephants to voluntarily complete a trunk wash.
Operant conditioning: Behaviours are reinforced (become more likely) when they are
rewarded. Behaviours that are punished become less likely. Shaping: behaviour is
gradually modified through a series of stages until the animal is able to consistently
reproduce the desired behaviour. Rewards are given for behaviours that are increasingly
similar to the desired behaviour.Behavioural chaining: animals are trained to perform a
sequence (chain) of behaviours using reinforcement. Each behaviour in the chain is
learned through shaping. Next, the animal is only rewarded when the first two behaviours
are performed consecutively. Then a third behaviour will be added, withdrawing and
presenting rewards until the full chain has been learned.
SAMPLE
Sample: Size: 5. Demographic: elephants housed at the same stable in Nepal;
four aged 5–7 years (juvenile), born at the stable; one adult in her 50s; all female.
Sampling technique: the elephants were chosen as they were docile (easy to
handle) and not pregnant; also their handlers were available and willing.
PROCEDURE
Research Method:
Experimental Design: structured, non-participant observation
A behavioural checklist was used to measure how successful the elephants
were in completing trunk-wash behaviours, which included:1 Trunk here: put trunk
into trainer’s hand (for insertion of saline/sterile water using syringe).2 Trunk up:
lift up trunk and hold (to let fluid flow to trunk base).3 Trunk down: lower trunk into
bucket.4 Blow into the bucket: to collect fluid.5 Hold steady: keep trunk still.
Variables:An assistant observed each training session and recorded:» minutes of
training» number of verbal cues made to the elephant » success rate for each
behaviour and sequence (after session ten, they were tested every fifth session on
everything they had learned so far); success criteria 80 per cent (correct behaviour
shown eight out of ten times)
RESULTS
Results The juveniles learned the full trunk wash in 25–35 sessions, averaging 12
minutes per session (total training time: 367 minutes).» The adult failed to learn
the full sequence.– She did not meet success criteria for blowing and hold
steady.– She was also never fully desensitised to the syringe.» Two juveniles
also failed hold steady, except as part of the full trunk wash.» The success rate for
accurate individual behaviours/sequences increased from 39 to 89 per cent after
35 sessions.» The most difficult behaviour to learn was trunk here/trunk in hand
(295 offers).» The easiest behaviour to learn was blow into bucket (54 offers).
CONCLUSION
Secondary positive reinforcement is effective for training juvenile elephants to voluntarily and reliably participate in a trunk wash.
GRAVE
:) Reliability – the clear operational definitions of trunk-wash behaviours increased the reliability of the observer’s decisions about whether the elephants passed or failed.:) Validity – the mahouts did not speak or signal to the elephants, meaning that behavioural changes were due to the secondary positive reinforcement and not additional communication. :( Subjectivity – only one observer made the decisions about whether elephants passed or failed. They may have been biased as they might have wanted the elephants to be successful. :( Generalisations – the older female elephant in the study may have had poor vision and physical problems. Her poor performance on the trunk wash may not generalise to other older females.
Fagan et al: Strengths and Weaknessses
Reliability:.Standardised Training Procedures – The study utilized standardised training procedures across all subjects. Each elephant was trained using the same basic behavioural tasks (e.g., ‘Trunk here’, ‘Trunk up’, ‘Bucket’, ‘Blow’, ‘Steady’) and the same sequence of training steps. This standardisation enhances the internal validity of the study by ensuring that any observed differences in learning and performance were due to the elephants’ individual differences rather than variations in training methods.
Repeatability of Results – The training methodology employed in the study is replicable, allowing for repeated studies to verify results. The clear documentation of the training procedures, the use of objective measures, and the detailed description of the behavioural tasks make it possible for other researchers to replicate the study. This repeatability is crucial for validating the findings and contributes to the overall reliability of the research. Ecological Validity – The study was conducted in a natural setting where the elephants were already living and being cared for. This means the training occurred in the elephants’ regular environment, rather than in a contrived laboratory setting. Such a setting enhances the ecological validity of the study, as the behaviours and responses of the elephants are more likely to reflect how they would react in real-world situations
Generalisibility: Limited Sample Size and Diversity – The study involved only five elephants, all of whom were female and predominantly juveniles. This limited sample size and lack of diversity in age and sex may reduce the generalizability of the findings. The results might not represent male elephants, older elephants, or those with different backgrounds or training histories.
Validity: Subjective Assessment Criteria – The criteria for judging the success of the trained behaviours were subjectively determined by the trainer. While performance tests were used to assess proficiency, the determination of whether a behaviour was of sufficient quality for the trunk wash was based on the trainer’s judgment. This subjective assessment could introduce bias and affect the validity of the results. Sessions were not recorded or validated by the use of inter-observer validation methods.
Potential Environmental and External Influences – The training environment included potential distractions such as the presence of tourists, other animals, and proximity to meal times. These factors could have influenced the elephants’ performance and learning rate, potentially affecting the validity of the study’s results. Additionally, the study did not control for these external variables, which might have impacted on the training effectiveness and the elephants’ responses, also affecting the validity of the results.
APP TO EVERYDAY LIFE
Fagen et al. developed a safe, ethical and effective way of training elephants to perform health checks. » This procedure will help improve animal health and benefit humans, who can catch tuberculosis from infected elephants.» Animals could be trained for other veterinary procedures
using these principles, e.g. taking blood samples or X-rays, decreasing stress and improving wellbeing.
NATURE VS NURTURE
INDIVIDUAL VS SITUATIONAL
The adult was the only elephant not able to learn the full trunk wash. Individual differences in
age/physical health may explain her lack of learning. » Situational factors may have affected her ability to learn the trunk wash. For example:– The trainers may have responded differently to her due to her age.– A young calf kept wandering into her stall. This may have distracted her.
ETHICS
small sample, no distress, could move away from training if wished.
