So a "negative reinforcer" can either provide punishment or negative reinforcement? And "negative reinforcer" is a synonym for "aversive stimulus"? I can make sense of all of that, though again, it does seem unnecessarily complicated when thrown in the mix with the concept of "negative reinforcement" (though perhaps the problem is in _that_ term, not in the term "negative reinforcer").
So then as a follow-up question - we believe that students confuse "negative reinforcement" with "punishment". Is it possible that instead they're either not confused at all, or confusing "negative reinforcement" with "negative reinforcer" (as apparently I have done)? Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee -----Original Message----- From: jim clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:46 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: apparition Hi On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Paul Smith wrote: > Michael Caruso wrote: > > > Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I just looked at the only three behavioral > > analysis texts I have (2 from 1979 and 1 from 1993) and all three define a > > "negative reinforcer" as an aversive stimulus - one's whose removal > > following a response reinforces the behavior. > > Er, and therefore the McMaster site IS in error when it > claims that "A negative reinforcer is a stimulus that reduces > the probability of any response it follows". I get the > feeling you thought that we were complaining about something > else (I'm not sure what), since your examples are supporting > the claim that the McMaster site is wrong, right? No it is not in error because it is referring to the presentation (not removal) of a negative reinforcer. Presentation of an aversive stimulus (aka negative reinforcer) is punishment and does decrease the probability of the response it follows. Removal of an aversive stimulus (aka negative reinforcer) is negative reinforcement and does increase the probability of the response it follows. I would think it could be equally confusing to students to say that a stimulus (e.g., a shock) is a negative reinforcer when its elimination follows a response, but the same shock when it is presented after a response somehow is no longer a negative reinforcer. Some people appear to be including the removal/presentation into the defining characteristics of shock (or whatever the aversive stimulus is), whereas others, like the McMaster site, appear to be separating the stimulus (i.e., shock) from the presentation/removal question. One advantage of the latter approach is that it eliminates the need for a separate term (e.g., aversive stimulus) for the actual stimulus. For those who conflate the two, presumably they would feel comfortable saying that an aversive stimulus increases the frequency of some response when it is removed and decreases the frequency of some response when it is presented. All the McMaster-type people are doing is substituting negative reinforcer for aversive stimulus. Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ --- 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]
