Punishment is the reponse to an undesired behavior with an undesired consequence. Negative reinforcement is presenting an undesired stimulus so that a desired behavior will take place to remove said stimulus. Let's say I drink too much champagne, get a hangover, and take an aspirin. The hangover serves as punishment for the drinking, and negative reinforcement for the taking of aspirin. Hence, it is both punishment and negative reinforcement, but for different behaviors. A stimulus cannot be both punishment and negative reinforcement for the same behavior, but it can be for different behaviors (or different people in the same situation).
Behaviorists would hate this, but there's really no such thing as an uninterpretable stimulus. No event has a sort of an a priori ontological status as "punishment" or "negative reinforcement" or "reward." It's all contextual.
I'm not quite sure (behaviorally speaking) where you're coming from.
To a behavior analyst, the only 'uninterpretable' stimulus would be one where we lacked data concerning its functional relationships to behavior.
A reinforcer is a consequence of behavior that maintains or increases the frequency of behavior.
A punisher is a consequence of behavior that decreases the frequency of that behavior.
All very contextual.
As you point out, the same stimulus event may punish one behavior and (negatively) reinforce another, depending upon the specific contingencies.
In your example, overdoing the champagne has a hangover as a consequence and is punished (assuming that you know better the next time ;-).
Taking the aspirin is (negatively) reinforced by the _removal_ of the headache.
The one thing that this behaviorist might object to is labeling events as 'desirable' and 'undesirable', which _does_ presume some a priori ontological status.
No event is a reinforcer or punisher until its effect on a specified behavior has been demonstrated.
I'd suggest using a different example in class. Because behavior is interpretable, the parent's taking the toy away could be seen as punishment (depriving child of a desired object) or, pragmatically, just removing the opportunity to misbehave.
This would depend upon exactly what was happening in the specific instance.
If removing a toy consequent to a behavior reduces the frequency of that behavior then (negative) punishment has occurred.
If that operation also makes the behavior impossible to emit, then the parent will be negatively reinforced more immediately than if the punishment simply reduced the frequency or future likelihood of the behavior.
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
