I'm sure you're not the only one who has seen it used this way. Unfortunately, that's a fairly weak defense of the use of the term in this way. Might we consult our learning/learning theorist friends in psychology. According to them, the terminology, when used correctly and consistently is not very confusing at all.
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] -- |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 "unanswered questions are less dangerous than unquestioned answers" --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
