Im wondering if electric shocks are used by control freaks? Or possibly followers of the late Marquis de Sade?
Because as there are better, more effective ways to train, there must be some reward for the user for them to continue using these things ....... and am wondering what gratification they get from inflicting pain.

I've explained why they don't (in the way that you suggest, that is).

The way I've seen it explained by shock collar supporters is that the dog is experiencing negative punishment often/most of the time, if for example they know the owner has a sausage in their pocket, but they are not being given it.

I assume this is what you meant. If so, it's not correct.

But do you mean in the way I've referred to above?

eg. owner asks dog to sit, dog gets reinforcement (sausage).

Where is the negative punishment?

Just to add as well that if they did work with no pain and no bad effects, most reputable people would be using them!

Wys
x

It does seem so

Wys
x

The site you came up with in 214 (or 216) means you have been rummaging in the wrong places. Whats written on that site is totally irrelevant to operant learning theory, operant learning theory belongs only to it’s originator, B F Skinner, non of whats written in that site relates to operant learning theory.

1. Negative punishment anything which weakens a behaviour
2. Positive punishment anything which weakens a behaviour
3. Negative reinforcer anything which strengthens a behaviour.
Positive reinforcer, anything which strengthens a behaviour

The above are Skinners 4 operants in full, there are no more.

No1 & 2 weaken a behaviour by supressing that behaviour, No 1 is the most common operant used in dog training but it cannot be used alone, if the dog is on a lead No2 must occure sometimes.
No 3 is the only operant which always strengthens any behaviour.
No 4 cannot occure untill after 1,2, or 3 occure but if a beaviour does not strengthen or weaken then No 4 has not occured.

Nope - don`t get that.
surely 1&2 may well also produce alternative (displacement) behaviour? So a dog that is prevented from chasing his tail may bite his paws. Is this therefore counted as a success?
3 does not necessarily strengthen a behaviour. It may well alter it or stop it as well
And I don`t understand your last sentence - please explain.

quote from wiki - 1. Positive reinforcement (Reinforcement) occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus (commonly seen as pleasant) that increases the frequency of that behavior. In the Skinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.
2. Negative reinforcement (Escape) occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus (commonly seen as unpleasant) thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.
3. Positive punishment (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation") occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
4. Negative punishment (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal") occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Nope - don`t get that.
surely 1&2 may well also produce alternative (displacement) behaviour? So a dog that is prevented from chasing his tail may bite his paws. Is this therefore counted as a success?
3 does not necessarily strengthen a behaviour. It may well alter it or stop it as well
And I don`t understand your last sentence - please explain.

If I understand you correctly yes, any alternative behaviour by any animal means the original behaviour has weakened 'tends to make it not repeat'

Yes, the negative reinforcer always strengths any behaviour,'tends to make it repeat', it is because of the negative reinforcer humans perpetualy advance to keep increasing the quality of life, if it were not for the negative reinforcer we would not have survived as a species.

That sounds nuts. Would you give me an example of it?

And, as I said, a parallel unwanted behaviour which occurs as a result of suppressing the first unwanted behaviour is simply displacement, not success.