So many posts; so little time!! This is a complicated situation. We can argue the logic of a given terminology, or theoretical issues involving underlying mechanisms, but the reality is that the constraints of our existing language are real. We can only successfully introduce new terminology if there is a very real and obvious benefit for using the new terms.
In my case, I've found the use of the term 'aversive stimulus' to be more effective than 'negative reinforcer' in teaching students to accurately identify and describe behavior/environment contingencies in laboratory and real life situations. Your mileage may differ. The best thing to be said for it might be Winston Churchill's words on democracy: (to paraphrase) maybe the best that can be said for it is that it's better than anything else that has been tried in this imperfect world.
At 11:46 AM -0500 11/11/03, Stephen Black wrote:
On 11 Nov 2003, Paul Brandon wrote:
As I said earlier, part of the problem is inherent in the use of the topographically similar terms "negative reinforcer" and "negative reinforcement", leading to excessive stimulus generalization. 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)
This depends on how you define "aversive stimulus". Paul gave this definition in his previous post:
This is basically the definition used in the Glossary in Ferster and Skinner (1957). To quote from the Glossary of Behavior Principles 2nd ed. by Ferster et al (1975): "Aversive stimulus.. A stimulus whose termination increases the frequency of the performance is called an aversive stimulus. Such an increase in frequency is called negative reinforcement. An aversive stimulus which increases the frequency of a performance by terminating it is called a negative reinforcer. An aversive stimulus such as an electric shock or a loud noise may influence behavior in different ways, depending on its relation to the animal's performance. It may decrease the frequency of the performance it follows (punishment); it may elicit reflexes (unconditioned stimulus); or it may alter the frequency of many operant performances in the ongoing repertoire (emotion or anxiety)."
This seems to capture some of the nuances that Stephen refers to.
"An aversive stimulus is one whose presentation is punishing and whose removal is negatively reinforcing" .
I see three problems with the use of the term "aversive stimulus"
1) It's all too often not used in the technical sense given by Paul above but instead with inappropriate subjective connotations, as something unpleasant. So I think it's best to avoid the term.
A battle I've chosen to fight.
2) Paul's definition refers to a special class of events with the ability to both punish and negatively reinforce. I referred to Kazdin's contention that a stimulus doesn't necessarily have to have both properties simultaneously. What do we do with stimuli whose presentation is punishing but whose removal isn't negatively reinforcing, and vice versa?
Put them in a very small category of exceptions?
I believe that you mentioned that Kazdin had some problems coming up
with reasonable examples.
Psychology (like Biology) is not Physics; there are few totally invariant relationships.
In addition, when comparing positive and negative reinforcement (or punishment), the conditions themselves can't be identical. This makes it difficult to generalize and say that two types of contingencies are in general asymmetrical as opposed to the more limited statement that two specific contingencies are asymmetrical.
I think it's preferable to define a negative reinforcer as one whose removal is strengthening and then ask whether that stimulus can also function as a punisher when presented (leave it as an empirical question).
3) It's inelegant and convoluted to require that before one can designate a stimulus as a negative reinforcer, one has to first show that it's an aversive stimulus, which (according to Paul's definition) means that it must be shown both that its presentation weakens and its removal strengthens. Compare that with the straightforward definition that it's a negative reinforcer if its removal strengthens.
Yet even that one leads to widespread misunderstanding among students.
Aye, there's the rub.
-Stephen
At 11:14 AM -0600 11/11/03, Mike Scoles wrote:
I didn't mention a conditioned aversive stimulus. My general psychology prof made it clear that it is impossible to condition a stimulus!
Sounds like another linguistic question. But there is some controversy about contiguity and S-S relationships.
However, we know that animals are capable of timing, so that an emotional response could vary in a time-dependent manner. Unsignaled avoidance isn't a problem (or at least it wasn't in my dissertation 20 years ago).
In Herrnstein's shock frequency reduction studies responses were occasionally followed by shocks. Unless you're referring to integrating over time.
At 11:27 AM -0600 11/11/03, Mike Scoles wrote:
How much motive is required to express a well-learned response? Enough to counter another motive (hunger or thirst), or less? Even after supposed extinction of the aversive state ....
And I was taught that one extinguished _behaviors_ ;-)
-- * 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]
