RE: Negative reinforcement (was: apparition)

[Rick Froman]

Title: RE: Negative reinforcement (was: apparition)

I 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. Paul Brandon says:   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.   However, the apparent congruence in meanings just serves to strengthen the misperception of what positive and negative mean. Positive reinforcement and positive reinforcer both refer to strengthening but not because of the word “positive” but because of “reinforcer” or “reinforcement”. Students think a positive reinforcer is a good thing because its positive and, therefore, a negative reinforcer must be a bad thing. Having an alternative to the word positive when referring to a stimulus would make the distinction easier to make. I agree that appetitive is a poor solution.   Rick   Dr. Rick Froman Associate Professor of Psychology John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (479) 524-7295 http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/rfroman.asp       --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]