It seems to me that the two situations are perfectly symmetrical.
Formally they are.
However, empirically the positive reinforcer situation seems to result in less confusion. Possibly this is because the use of the terms positive and negative punishment never became common, so we don't run into the confusing situation of explaining why negative punishment involves the use of a positive reinforcer.
Again, this may be because the usage "positive reinforcer" was the original one.
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).
Historical note:
A quick look at books on my shelf shows Ferster and Skinner (1957) referring to 'negative reinforcer' and 'aversive stimulus' as equivalent terms, so the usage goes back at least that far.
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."
Again, "if" and "not necessarily".
The symmetry does not break down frequently enough to justify not using the language.
--
* 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]
