The Dreaded Tick Check - Part II (or… grooming?)
By Stephanie Keesey-Phelan, Ph.D., LABA, BCBA-D
I hadn’t actually planned to do a second blog post related to the tick check, especially not so close in time to when that post was published. But a thing happened that I thought deserved a follow-up post.
A few weeks ago I wrote and shared a video of my previous method for checking my dog Kerby for ticks. Essentially it involved holding a squeeze tube of wet dog food in one hand, while I combed him and checked him for ticks with the other. What I didn’t say, because it wasn’t immediately relevant, was that I also used this method for brushing out Kerby’s coat. He is a mini Aussie with a pretty thick coat and, as I’m sure you can imagine, this procedure (me feeding him while I groomed) has the same disadvantages for grooming as it does for tick checks. That is, it results in a lot of movement from Kerby, it limits me to use only one hand to groom, and it exacerbates some of my Rheumatoid Arthritis symptoms.
Two weeks ago after a hike in the woods I took out my tick check materials: a container of alcohol for any ticks I discovered, tweezers to grab them if I couldn’t with my fingers, and a small comb. I had noticed Kerby’s coat looking a little extra fluffy and thought he could use a good brush. My plan was that after the tick check, I’d pull out the squeeze tube of wet dog food to brush out his coat. I would go back to my method of using a food squeeze tube because I hadn’t specifically taught Kerby another procedure for grooming like I did for the tick check. So I took out the squeeze tube and my (and Kerby’s) favorite slicker brush and set them on the counter.
The tick check went just the same as usual. When it was over, Kerby wandered off to the living room. I took the brush off the counter and was sitting on the floor. When Kerby passed the kitchen again, he saw me sitting there and came trotting over. I hadn’t yet taken the food off the counter, but I held up the brush so he could see it and he curled into my body like he does for petting. I was surprised by this, and did a few runs of the brush over his back and paused. Kerby stayed put. I brushed a few more times and then he sat down in front of me with his back to me - his typical way to ask for a good back scritch. I brushed some more. After about a minute, he lay down flat on his side, and we did this:
About five minutes went by. When I paused to empty the brush of his fur, Kerby got up and switched to lay down on his other side. So we did this:
And then after another five-ish minutes of brushing, much to my (and Fozzie’s) shock, Kerby rolled onto his back with his paws in the air and I brushed his belly for another couple of minutes:
Why was this so surprising?
Well for one thing, as Ran pointed out when I shared the videos with them, when had we ever seen Kerby so still while awake? Even during the morning snuggles that inspired the tick check procedure, he was never this relaxed and chilled out.
In total I brushed Kerby for about 10 minutes. I paused plenty of times throughout, including for extended periods to empty the brush, and he stayed put. This has literally never happened before with this level of relaxation. He might lay down for petting for a few minutes, and he can certainly lay comfortably for the duration of the tick check song. But 10 minutes? Both sides and his belly? Unheard of!
Lastly, I did no training around grooming. Every time Kerby experienced brushing - except for being combed during our new tick check procedure - food was involved to “keep him busy.”
Why did this happen? What does it mean?
Sometimes I think to myself, can’t you just be happy with what you’ve got Stephanie? But the scientist in me is throwing up her hands in wonder, trying to figure out how this happened? Because this is a huge win. Think of the implications for Kerby’s and my wellbeing and relationship! This procedure is so much easier on my body. I can just sit with him and brush, I don’t have to hold and manipulate other items and continually reposition myself and Kerby to access the parts of his body that need brushing. Just as important, it seems much more relaxing for Kerby. When we’re trying to figure out why something has happened, we often look to see if something has changed in the environment. In this case, the only thing that has changed in terms of our routines is the new tick check procedure. So here are a few potential ideas for how we got here:
Consistent cues: During tick check, Kerby experienced a situation with a comb and no food. The reinforcer for his behavior of sitting or laying down for tick check was physical touch and interaction. Even though the tick check song wasn’t on, other stimuli were the same: my position on the floor, my location in the house, my phone nearby, the time of day I run this procedure, and the presence of an object in my hand. These stimuli may have cued the initial response of approaching me, because of Kerby’s recent history of reinforcement with touch in this context.
Generalization: There are different types of generalization, one of which is when the same response occurs in the presence of new stimuli without any formal training. The object I was holding was somewhat different from what I used during tick check - a big pink brush compared to a sleek black comb. Kerby had previously experienced being brushed with both objects. Kerby’s approach and positioning may have generalized to this new stimulus as a result of the consistent cues described above and his past history of experiencing brushing that felt good.
Reinforcement: I had never brushed Kerby with the slicker brush while he was sitting or lying down; with my previous procedure, he was always standing. I think once he experienced the good sensations of being groomed with this brush, sitting and then laying down facilitated access to more relaxed sensation. All this is to say, these stimuli provided a great deal of high quality reinforcement that resulted in an extended grooming session. I will note that this particular slicker brush is expensive, but I do think it has been worth it as it seems to be a much more comfortable experience to be brushed with this brush compared to other ones I had used previously.
Utilizing a constructional approach: I really do promise that we’ll bring you a blog about what a constructional approach is with much more detail. But in the meantime, if you take our tick check procedure as an example, you can get a sense of what the constructional approach is all about. Our goal in this type of training is to build new behavioral repertoires instead of reducing undesirable ones. That is, I was not looking to decrease “fidgeting or moving around while checking for ticks.” Instead, I wanted to establish a routine in which Kerby engaged in relaxed behavior during his tick check. A further distinction: instead of starting this behavior from scratch and trying to teach relaxation, I looked for where it already occurred and built from there.
When a behavioral repertoire, like lying down for tick check, comes into contact with new and powerful reinforcers (i.e., physical touch), it isn’t unusual that we would see the emergence of more behaviors to access those reinforcers. In behavior analysis we sometimes call this a behavioral cusp. A behavioral cusp is a behavioral change that introduces and expands an individual’s access to new environments, reinforcers, and learning opportunities (Cooper et al., 2020). In behavior analysis we often focus on behavioral cusps because of the benefits of expanding a learner’s world and experiences. It didn’t occur to me that in helping Kerby access physical touch and relaxation as a reinforcer in this way, there could be such significant generalization.
Now what?
Since the first episode with the slicker brush that I described above, I’ve been able to brush Kerby without food a number of times. He doesn’t always opt in; sometimes after tick check he wanders off to have some water or get a toy to play with. But more often than not, if the slicker brush is available, he’ll stay put for some additional grooming after the tick check is over.
I don’t have any formal plans to expand this training, but my mind is spinning with additional generalization I could program for and ways in which I could use this procedure to promote other grooming activities in the absence of food such as trimming Kerby’s paw fur and trimming his nails.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that we should be trying to avoid the use of food as a reinforcer. But for Kerby specifically, when I introduce food as a reinforcer or part of the training context, Kerby tends to engage in a lot of behaviors like vocalization and movement which can interfere with our progress toward training goals. What I am suggesting here is how valuable I’ve found the constructional approach to be in challenging me to consider other reinforcers. Using a constructional approach allowed me to identify where the behavior was already occurring, and to transfer stimulus control to new contexts. AND that when I did that, I got a lot more than I had planned for, in a good way. I taught a tick check procedure and a new grooming one was developed. In addition to this lovely new grooming routine, I have expanded my training repertoire beyond the use of some of my go-to strategies in a way that I think has substantially increased the joy in our training interactions (and peace - I mean did you watch those grooming videos?!).
So stay tuned - next up will be a deeper dive into what the constructional approach is and isn’t, and why it is the direction I am turning my training toward this year.