03/08/2025
Super interesting 😊
“Heads up”: What Reinforces a Behaviour That Predicts Something (Unavoidably) Unpleasant?
This morning, a dog came bolting across the dunes when they spotted Juno. She was nose-deep in driftwood, blissfully unaware.
“Heads up,” I called.
She lifted her head and scanned the horizon. Just like she always does after I give her the warning.
What’s interesting is that the behaviour — the head lift, the look around — is deliberate, consistent, and highly reliable. She does it every time I say it. But what follows isn’t always particularly pleasant in the way we might traditionally think of r+. A dog running straight toward her is rarely a welcome experience. Juno can tolerate a quick hello, but it’s clear she finds these greetings intrusive, especially when the other dog doesn’t slow down or offer a pause to “ask.” She stiffens slightly, shifts behind me, sometimes squints or turns her head. She rarely reacts loudly because she’s learned quieter strategies that are usually effective and because I do everything I can to intercept early.
Still, despite the event that follows often being seemingly mildly aversive, the cue and the behaviour are very much maintained. So, what gives?
Let’s break this down:
🔹 Antecedent: I say “heads up.”
🔹 Behaviour: Juno lifts her head and looks around to locate the dog.
🔹 Consequence: She gains information about what’s coming, and sometimes the ability to act on it.
So, if the arrival of the dog is the consequence, and it’s not reinforcing… what is?
The answer isn’t as simple as “treats” or “praise.”
What’s reinforcing may be the reduction in uncertainty.
Juno isn’t orienting because she enjoys being greeted by dogs that ignore social boundaries. She’s orienting because it gives her a sliver of control, a chance to prepare, and a way to communicate “no thanks” before the other dog gets too close.
And in behavioural terms, that matters.
What the Literature Tells Us:
📌 Predictability is emotionally protective
Even when the outcome isn’t great, knowing it’s coming can reduce distress. In both human and nonhuman animals, predictable aversive events are less emotionally damaging than unpredictable ones (Seligman & Maier, 1967; Mineka & Hendersen, 1985).
📌 Control (even partial) has intrinsic value
Perceived control has measurable stress-reducing effects (Leotti, Iyengar, & Ochsner, 2010). Juno can’t always stop the dog, but she can prepare, shift her body, or seek support from me. That sliver of control is reinforcing.
📌 Orienting may be negatively reinforced
By looking around, Juno reduces the intensity of the aversive event. She’s less startled, better able to respond, and more able to subtly avoid escalation. That reduction in stress functions as a form of negative reinforcement.
📌 Discriminative control is strong when reinforcement history is mixed
Even if the current consequence (the dog) is mildly aversive, orienting may be maintained by earlier reinforcement (praise, food, information, the occasional chance to disengage) (Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Nevin et al., 2001). Behaviour maintained under variable or intermittent reinforcement is surprisingly resilient.
📌 Habit formation and cue persistence
After many repetitions, a cue like “heads up” can become embedded in a behavioural routine. Even if the original reinforcers fade, the cue-response pattern persists, especially if it still yields some benefit (Balleine & Dickinson, 1998; Domjan, 2018).
There’s another layer here too. A social layer.
Looking around gives Juno the chance to act early. That might mean turning her head, shifting behind me, or making herself smaller. These subtle signals though often missed by most humans we meet, are meaningful in dog communication. And often, they work.
So even when she can’t fully avoid the interaction, she can change the terms of it. And that’s reinforcing too. This fits with what we know about early signal detection and the importance of proactive behaviour in social encounters (Wemelsfelder, 2007; Wiley, 2006).
🧠 Reinforcement Isn’t Always Obvious
What maintains the behaviour isn’t the greeting. It’s the ability to prepare.
Not being caught off guard.
Not being blindsided.
Being able to assess, plan, act, or communicate.
It’s a subtle form of agency. And it reminds me that what’s reinforcing isn’t always what we think it is. It’s not always food or toys or smiles. Sometimes it’s the ability to manage the world, even just a little!
References (for the behaviour nerds!):
Balleine, B. W., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Goal-directed instrumental action: contingency and incentive learning and their cortical substrates. Neuropharmacology, 37(4–5), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(98)00033-1
Boissy, A., & Erhard, H. W. (2014). How studying interactions between animal emotions, cognition, and personality can contribute to improve farm animal welfare. In Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals (pp. 95-129). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85752-9.00014-7
Domjan, M. (2018). The Principles of Learning and Behavior (8th Ed.). Cengage.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of Reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Fureix, C., & Meagher, R. K. (2015). What can inactivity tell us about affective states in non-human animals? Animal Welfare, 24(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.036
Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.001
Mineka, S., & Hendersen, R. (1985). Controllability and predictability in acquired motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 495–529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.002431
Nevin, J. A., McLean, A. P., & Grace, R. C. (2001). Resistance to extinction: Contingency termination and generalization decrement. Animal Learning & Behavior, 29(2), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192826
Seligman, M. E., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024514
Wemelsfelder, F. (2007). How animals communicate quality of life: The qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare, 16(S1), 25–31. doi:10.1017/S0962728600031699
Wiley, R. H. (2006). Signal detection and animal communication. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 36, 217-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(06)36005-6
