09/06/2026
There is always a lot of discussion that regularly does the rounds on social media surrounding the question, is Positive Reinforcement “good” and Negative Reinforcement ("pressure and release" training) “bad”?
First of all, I would ask, for who? The trainer or the horse/animal?
You are then assured that positive simply means adding and negative simply means removing, that’s all, phew! But that’s not the full story, that’s only half the facts. If you see someone suggesting that Negative Reinforcement is ok or fine or benign, because it’s not bad, it’s just removing, it's just "removal reinforcement" - RED FLAG! 🚩
I’ve said this many times in the past, always question and verify information and not take things at face value on social media. We are all learning and at different points in our learning journey and that includes me, so this is not a criticism. This is me trying to help people understand and disseminate information about training and behaviour change.
We can all have opinions, but there are also facts and sometimes the absence of certain facts, can change the very nature of the message. You can ask questions and have a discussion here, I won’t gaslight or block you like other trainers do.
There’s an important difference between Negative and Positive Reinforcement. For them to actually affect future behaviour, one involves an aversive (unpleasant) stimulus and one involves an appetitive (pleasant) stimulus. Think about that for a moment, one stimulus feels uncomfortable enough for the horse, physically, mentally or emotionally, to elicit some kind of behaviour change, that we can then reinforce by its removal. We might like to tell ourselves it's just “mild pressure” but it was still strong enough to get some kind of response from the horse to attempt to escape or avoid it. Horses are super sensitive and emotional beings and they feel things strongly. They can also feel a fly land on them!
Negative Reinforcement is also called Escape and Avoidance Learning! If it were that “mild and gentle” and non-aversive, it would be neutral and the horse wouldn’t change their behaviour in order to escape it.
It's also important for me to point out that we don't get to decide how unpleasant or not the aversive stimulus in Negative Reinforcement can be. The animal decides how aversive something is.
A good Negative Reinforcement trainer should also know how to put behaviours on cue, on an aversive cue, so that the horse doesn't re-experience the aversive stimulus every time. Hopefully they are giving a cue that gives the horse the opportunity to avoid the aversive onset.
I also need to emphasise that there is more than the “4 quadrants” involved in learning. This is important to know, because we need to consider not only how horses learn, but also what is being paired or associated with the behaviour, how they feel while they are learning.
There is Operant Conditioning and there is also Classical (Pavlovian) Conditioning and there are also other ways we learn. Classical Conditioning means that along with the stimulus and the response, there is an association being made between two stimuli. That can be a feeling, an unpleasant, a neutral or a pleasant feeling or anything in between and that becomes associated with a stimulus and with the trainer. Via Pavlovian Conditioning, we the trainer, become associated with these feelings.
Therefore if you train mainly with Positive Reinforcement, you’ll have a horse who mainly likes you and the training. If you train with Negative Reinforcement the opposite will be true.
BUT other learning and associations are also happening, therefore it can seem that your horse likes being caught, likes their bit or likes their stable, if it predicts something that they like will follow or an association has been made between those things and something they like or need. That could be things like leaving their mundane paddock, going for an interesting walk or being fed, it’s like a trade off.
We can also get a seemingly calm and willing horse, because control may be a primary reinforcer, whether that’s control of the addition of an appetitive or understanding what to do to remove an aversive stimulus. It doesn’t mean they’re having fun, it simply means they understand how to avoid the aversive stimulus.
But remember that they had to first feel the discomfort of the aversive stimulus and they also then made the connection with who applied it in the first place, YOU, before they figured out how to remove or avoid it.
A negative emotional valence does have an impact and can impede learning processes. A perceived threat can disconnect horses from learning (and the trainer) and negative emotions can also lead to low motivation. Makes sense right?!
To sum up, an easy way to remember all this is that when we are training and interacting with our horses, we have Skinner (Operant Conditioning) on one shoulder and Pavlov (Classical Conditioning) on the other.
When we do something with our horse, we need to ask ourselves, how do they feel about it and how does that feeling rub off on us?
Finally, these kinds of posts always stir up a lot of cries about the mean R+ trainers and how we are saying negative reinforcement is cruel, abusive and you're evil if you use it. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying, be informed, be aware and choose carefully.