Hi On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Paul Brandon wrote:
> At 10:28 AM -0600 11/11/03, Rick Froman wrote: > >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. It seems to me that the two situations are perfectly symmetrical. Removing a positive reinforcer can act as negative punishment, just as presenting a negative reinforcer (renamed aversive stimulus) can act as a positive punishment. So if you insist on different name for negative reinforcer (rather than using removal of negative reinforcer to define negative reinforcement and presentation of negative reinforcer to define positive punishment), then you should similarly have different name for positive reinforcer (rather than using presentation of positive reinforcer to define positive reinforcement and removal of positive reinforcer to define negative punishment). I'm inclined to think that the McMaster person's approach is the most parsimonious, barring some actual example of Stephen's point that perhaps presentation and removal of negative reinforcer (i.e., aversive stimulus) do not always have opposite effects on behaviour. I wonder if same is true for presentation and removal and positive reinforcer (i.e., ??? stimulus); that is, they do not always lead to opposite outcomes? Of course, if the symmetry does break down, the use of a term like aversive stimulus does not necessarily solve the problem that would introduce. One would still be unable to make simple statements like "presentation of aversive stimulus (i.e., negative reinforcer) reduces behaviour" whereas "removal of aversive stimulus (i.e., negative reinforcer) increases behaviour." 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]
