1. Settings and participants were in fact real. The intervention however, was not real. In case you are wondering The setting was simply Teddys natural environment at my boyfriends house.

2. Teddy is a poodle that had learned on his own to smile and had a natural taste for beer. 3. There was technically no reason to intervene, I simply studied the natural contingencies occurring in the environment (aka Teddys house) 4. Beer was a natural reinforcer for Teddy. Smiling was the naturally occurring behavior. 5. Teddy has no reinforcing taste of beer.Teddy smiles.Teddy still has no reinforcing taste of beer. 6. For Teddy to successfully obtain beer, we outlined 3 behaviors and chained them together- a process called behavioral chaining. Looking at the can. Sitting patiently. And finally, smiling. 7. Teddy would need an unconditioned stimulus. The U.S. would be the beer itself, but what would Teddys unconditioned response be? 8. For ease sake, well just say that his unconditioned response was drooling. I dont know many dogs that dont drool and its pretty common for mammals to salivate when in the presence of a favorite food or drink. 9. Next, Teddy needed a conditioned stimulus. Since beer was usually distributed in cans at the house, a silver beer can would be Teddys cue that beer was in front of him. And the conditioned response? Teddy could smile when he wanted to; now my goal was to train him to specifically smile for beer. 10. Ted has no beer.Ted smiles.Ted has beer. 11. Desired response was achieved through intervention. No recycling necessary. The naturally reinforcing taste of beer was sufficient for Teddy to learn. 12. If I were to recycle More strict and consistent monitoring (meaning Ted was not allowed to have any beer unless he smiled. ) Introduce salty snacks, making thirst his motivating operation. This thirst or deprivation increases relevant learning and performance. 13. In our hypothetical recycle, Teddy was thirsty and ready to learn- easily increasing his performance to 98.9% 14. Teddy Me