Hmm. The first two of these (both from that "hyperdictionary" site) do agree with the usage I'm having a problem with. But the last two (USF and UIowa) both say (correctly, as I understand it)) that a negative reinforcer increases (or maintains) the liklihood of the behavior (that is, they disagree with the McMaster graphics in question*, and agree with what I think is the correct usage). As a result, I'm inclined to believe that the "WordNet Dictionary" also shares the misconception.
I hope I'm not sounding stubborn or obstinate - I'm just not yet convinced. <grin> * From the McMaster site: "A negative reinforcer is a stimulus that reduces the probability of any response it follows". Again, that sounds like "punishment" to me, and apparently to the authors of the USF and UIowa sites as well. Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee Michael Caruso wrote: > I don't want to be put in a position of defending a confusing explanation of > a concept, but there are many who use the term "reinforcer" for stimuli that > can either increase or decrease the probabity of a response and the term > "negative reinforcer" in the way it was used in the graphic. > > Just the first few returns form a google search: > > For example from http://www.hyperdictionary.com/: > > REINFORCER > WordNet Dictionary > Definition: [n] (psychology) a stimulus that strengthens or weakens the > behavior that produced it > > NEGATIVE REINFORCER > WordNet Dictionary > Definition: [n] a reinforcing stimulus whose removal serves to decrease > the likelihood of the response that produced it > Synonyms: negative reinforcing stimulus > > From http://www.coedu.usf.edu/abaglossary/main.asp: > > NEGATIVE REINFORCER > An aversive stimulus; a stimulus that, when removed or reduced as a > consequence of a response, results in an increase in or maintenance of that > response. See also Aversive stimulus. > > From > http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/wasserman/Glossary/reinforcement.htm > l: > > Negative Reinforcer > A negative reinforcer is an aversive event whose removal follows an operant > response. The negative reinforcer increases the likelihood of that behavior > occurring again under the same circumstances > > etc, etc, etc. > > There are many who make a distinction between negative reinforc*ers* and > negative reinforce*ment*. > > Again, I don't use the term negative reinforcer in my teaching because I > think it confuses students. Surely, I can't be the only Tipster who's seen > the word reinforcer used in this way. > > Mike > > ---- > Steven Specht wrote: > > Reinforcers (whether negative or positive) will increase the probability of > a > behavior happening again in the future... that's why they are called > "reinforcers". Negative reinforcement describes the alleviation of an > aversive > stimulus when a behavior is emitted (therefore the animal will likely do the > behavior again in the future). Positive reinforcement describes the addition > of > an appetitive stimulus when a behavior is emitted (therefore the animal will > likely do the behavior again in the future). > Negative reinforcers or reinforcement IS NOT AVERSIVE and IS NOT the same as > PUNISHMENT. > > Carol DeVolder wrote: > > > If something is presented (i.e., it has a positive relationship with the > occurence of the behavior) then it is positive. If something is removed when > the behavior occurs, then it has a negtive relationship with the behavior > and thus is negative. > > Punishment refers ONLY to the decrease in future probability of the > behavior's occurance; reinforcement refers ONLY to the increase in future > probability of the behavior's occurance. > There is no debating that a negative reinforcer is the removal of something > that increases future occurences of the behavior. A negative reinforcer can > NOT decrease future behavior, no matter what it is. That hasn't changed over > the decades. > Carol > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Caruso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:00 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: Re: apparition > > > I hope I'm not opening up a can of worms here, but I don't think his > graphics are in error. I think he is using the terminology in a way that > was standard in some circles at one time but is not currently in favor in > most current intro psych texts. > > First off, he doesn't define negative reinforce*ment*, he defines negative > reinforc*er* as a stimulus that decreases the strength of behavior with it's > application. I remember this use of the term negative reinforcer when I was > in college. So usually a negative reinforcer is an aversive stimulus > whereas a positive reinforcer is generally a pleasant stimulus. > > In the second graphic he explains that when a negative reinforcer is present > following the response, this is punishment and decreases the strength of the > behavior (no error here). The graphic also says that the removal of a > negative reinforcer following a behavior increases its strength (no error > here either). He calls this escape, where most intro texts would use the > term "negative reinforcement", but escape strikes me as an acceptable, if > less common, term. > > What exactly are the errors in the graphics? > > Michael Caruso > Associate Professor > Department of Psychology > University of Toledo > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www: http://www.utoledo.edu/~mcaruso/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DeVolder Carol L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:49 AM > Subject: RE: apparition > > > I'd say not only does it not help students, it hurts them in the long run. > Has anyone considered letting the website author know about his errors? > Carol > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stuart Mckelvie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:12 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: Re: apparition > > > Dear Ken and Other Tipsters, > > What a howler! > > This does not help students.... > > Stuart > > > > Date sent: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:00:48 -0500 > From: Ken Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: apparition > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Send reply to: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > But look at the definition of negative reinforcement on that web site! > > > > http://intropsych.mcmaster.ca/intropsych/1a3/Learn/lec3-1.htm > > > > Ken > > > > Mike Scoles wrote: > > > > >http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/psychology/psych1a6/1a3/S_P/lec3-3.htm > > > > > >Allan & Siegel proposed that the afterimage is a compensatory response, > > >conditioned to orientation (or other) cues as they are paired with the > > >inducing color--much like Siegel's earlier explanation of drug tolerance > and > > >withdrawal (cues paired with a drug elicit compensatory responses that > are > > >seen as withdrawal, or that attenuate subsequent responses to the drug). > > > > > >************************************************* > > >Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. > > >Director, Arkansas Charter School Resource Center > > >Associate Professor of Psychology & Counseling > > >University of Central Arkansas > > >Conway, AR 72035 > > >voice: (501) 450-5418 > > >fax: (501) 450-5424 > > >************************************************* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Annette Taylor, Ph. D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 8:56 PM > > >>To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > > >>Subject: Re: apparition > > >> > > >> > > >>More on the McCullough Effect please! > > >> > > >>Annete > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600 > Chairperson, Extension 2402 > Department of Psychology, > Bishop's University, Fax: (819)822-9661 > 3 Route 108 East, > Borough of Lennoxville, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sherbrooke, > Quebec J1M 1Z7, Canada. > > Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: > http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
