At 10:28 AM -0600 11/11/03, Rick Froman wrote:
Paul says:
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.
On a related point, is there a name for the type of stimulus you add to the situation that leads to positive reinforcement other than an stimulus? Whereas, "aversive" works well in naming stimuli that, when added to a situation contingent on a behavior will lead to a decrease in the behavior, I wish there was a word that more clearly communicated the opposite concept. For obvious reasons, I want to stay away from referring to it as a positive stimulus or a positive reinforcer.
Seems to be less of a problem here.
Positive reinforcement and positive reinforcer both
refer to strengthening, while
negative reinforcement refers to strengthening but
a negative reinforcer (when presented has a weakening
effect).
At any rate, there has been little movement towards suggesting an
alternative to positive reinforcer.
The problem with terms like "appetitive" is that they
do not refer to all positive reinforcers, particularly conditioned
ones.
--
* 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 *
* 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]
