But the short answer to what's wrong with the graphics is that
students are confused enough by our current definition of without adding to their misery by stating it in a way
which can only confuse further. Current consensus is that a should never be defined as "a stimulus that reduces the
probability of any response it follows"
As I said earlier, part of the problem is inherent in the use of the topographically similar terms "negative reinforcer" and "negative reinforcement", leading to excessive stimulus generalization.
The solution is to use the term "aversive stimulus" to refer to the event (which can function as either a reinforcer or a punisher depending upon the contingency) and restrict the term negative reinforcement to refer to the _process_ of strengthening a behavior by removing something following that behavior.
There are two subcategories of negative reinforcement:
Escape -- when the aversive situation is already present and is removed following the behavior, and
Avoidance -- when the aversive situation is _not_ present, and whose occurrence is prevented or postponed (made less likely) by the occurrence of the defined 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]
