My comments on Michael Caruso's first point regarding the hapless McMaster Psychology Department webpage:
(see http://intropsych.mcmaster.ca/intropsych/1a3/Learn/lec3-1.ht at the very department from whence my own graduate degrees flow, shame on them): On 3 Nov 2003, Michael Caruso wrote: > 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. > Yes. We discussed the historical origin of this change from negative reinforcement meaning punishment (presentation decreases behaviour) to its current usage (removal increases behaviour) on a number of occasions and I find it curious and fascinating. Chuck Huff (letter to TIPS, August 25, 2000) noted that Skinner used "negative reinforcement" in _Walden Two_ (1945) in a way which implies the punishment definition, and I pointed out (Aug 25 after) that Skinner explicitly stated this definition back in his earlier 1935 paper in the Journal of General Psychology (12, 66-77). Yet I also discovered (also Aug 25) that by _Science and Human Behavior_(1953), Skinner had switched to the current definition. A year later, we discussed the issue again, and I did some library browsing. What I discovered (see my letter to TIPS of August 8, 2001) was that textbooks which originally used the punishment definition slowly began switching over to the modern usage first endorsed by Skinner in 1953. However, it wasn't until the early 1970's that the switch appeared complete. What is fascinating about this is that Skinner appears to have abruptly switched in 1953 from defining negative reinforcement as punishment to defining it in its modern usage without ever remarking on this abrupt about-face or justifying it. Nor did anyone else. Yet without a single protest or discussion of the issue, the previously dominant "negative reinforcement as punishment" lobby capitulated, albeit slowly. The result is that the definition we have today (its removal increases behaviour) became the orthodox, and woe to those who say otherwise, for they shall be scorned. It's reasonable to assume that it was because Skinner was so influential, even in 1953, that everyone else eventually followed along, although the lack of debate is surprising. It may also be because it was recognized that the new definition was superior. Yet we all assume it was Skinner who invented the new definition in the first place, as he gave no reference when he slipped it unannounced into _Science and Human Behavior_ in 1953. But it wasn't. Stephen ___________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
