Principle 1: The effect of an event is not known in advance. It is a label for a change in behavior.
"The only way to tell whether a given event is reinforcing to a given organism under given conditions is to make a direct test. We observe the frequency of a selected response, then make an event contingent upon it and observe any change in frequency. If there is a change, we classify the event as reinforcing to the organism under the existing conditions."
Principle 2: Negative and positive refer to contingencies.
"Events which are found to be reinforcing are of two sorts. Some reinforcements consist of *presenting* [original in italics] stimuli, of adding something--for example food, water, or sexual contact--to the situation. These we call *positive* reinforcers. Others consist of *removing* something--for example, a loud noise, a very bright light, extreme cold or heat, or electric shock--from the situation. These we call *negative* reinforcers. In both cases the effect of reinforcement is the same--the probability of response is increased.
Principle 3: Consistency is for the birds. (Or, self-contradiction is permitted if done immediately.)
"The difference between the two cases will be clearer when we consider the *presentation" of a *negative* reinforcer or the *removal* of a *positive*. These are the consequences which we call punishment (Chapter XII.)"
The first principle is the important Empirical Law of Effect. The second gives us the standard Skinnerian definition of negative reinforcement. Unfortunately, the third quote immediately violates both principles in rule and spirit [ahem]. Labelling an event as a negative reinforcer describes its empirically-observed function in one situation. But one should not speak of presenting a "negative reinforcer" in a punishment situation because this presumes the event has some common property that is constant and transferrable across situations (which Skinner argued against). Labelling the event in advance presumes that we know the function of the event in advance and do not need an empirical classification scheme. Additionally, the quote assumes a false symmetry between reinforcement and punishment. (And Skinner argued against the symmetry of the two in Chapter XII.)
So there is an important distinction between between negative reinforcement and negative reinforcers. When we get a reinforcement effect, then we can label the event as a reinforcer in that situation. But not the reverse sequence because labelling the event as a reinforcer before knowing the results of exposure to the contingency presumes that we don't need the empirical test. And those results do not tell us what might happen in a punishment situation. We need to expose the person to the contingency and record its effect.
Ken
--------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA ---------------------------------------------------------------
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
