Best to first define the behavior being observed:
in this case it is WRITING.
The contingency is IF writing continues THEN the aversive stimulus
does not occur.
Looks like a classic instance of Sidman (nonsignalled) avoidance
behavior (negative reinforcement) to me.
On Nov 19, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Tarner, Prof. Nina L. wrote:
Hi Rick,
But it isn't the aversive stimulus that is occurring first. The
person is writing first and then when they stop the aversive
stimulus occurs. So, in order to stop the aversion stimuli the
person decrease the likelihood of stopping writing (not sure that
is proper grammar) again.
As a researcher in learning and behavior, I always actually
believed that you could talk yourself into all four (positive and
negative reinforcement and punishment) with any situation. You
become creative but it works. But with this example I am looking at
it as what is occurring normally and then what occurs as a result
of change in that behavior.
Nina
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Froman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:31 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Interesting example of negative reinforcement
I believe the increased behavior is the number of words written
(reinforcement). That seems to be more parsimonious than decreasing
the likelihood of not stopping writing. Is that a double negative
or a triple negative? I lost count. :) If writing turns off the
aversive stimulus and it leads to an increase in writing behavior,
then it is negative reinforcement.
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________
From: Tarner, Prof. Nina L. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:19 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Interesting example of negative reinforcement
Hi Michael,
This sounds more like negative or positive punishment. Either they
are "given" (the positive part) bad music to "decrease" the
likelihood they will not stop writing again OR they are "taking
away" (the negative part) the written words, again to decrease the
likelihood the will stop writing again.
I don't get the reinforcement part. Reinforcement increase the
likelihood that a behavior will occur again and therefore they
would be increasing the likelihood that the person would again stop
writing. Doesn't make sense.
Nina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A friend of mine is participating in the annual National Novel
Writer's Month, in which participants try to write 50,000 words by
the end of November.
There's a neat little online application called "Write or Die"
which uses a little negative reinforcement to keep writer's
writing. Basically you choose how many words you're going to write
and within how much time you'll write them (say 100 words within 10
minutes) and then after you click "Write!" you get a blank page to
start writing. Depending on some other options which you select,
the site will start annoying you by playing really bad music if you
stop writing. Set it on "evil" and it will start to erase the
words you've already written if you don't keep writing!
I thought it might be fun to show students the site and see if they
can guess what reinforcement principle is at work. Here's the link
to Write or Die:
http://lab.drwicked.com/writeordie.html
Michael
--
Michael Britt, Ph.D.
Host of The Psych Files
http://www.thepsychfiles.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])