I assume that you looked on Amazon, it's a lot cheaper ($25) at the source. Go to <http://www.behavior.org/store/authors_cooperative.cfm>
On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Michael Smith wrote: > > No, unfortunately I haven't read 'Coercion and its Fallout', and by > the looks of the rarity of the book and its cost, I might not be > able to. I did read the article mentioned in Steven Hall's later > post and it sounds like I am missing out :( > > --Mike > > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Paul Brandon <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Paul Brandon <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [tips] Extinction > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 7:56 AM > > > Agreed! > Just to reiterate: > Most interventions that are described as punishment really involve > negative reinforcement as their main function. > In common language the term 'punishment' usually implies any use of > aversive stimulation, irrespective of the contingency. > BTW -- have you read Sidman's 'Coercion and its Fallout'? > > On Jan 7, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > >> >> >> Thanks for the reply :-) >> >> I guess my point was to try and isolate the relative effectiveness >> of reinforcement of alternate behavior vs. punishment, at >> eliminating a target behavior without regard for practicalities (… >> in theory, ….the essence). >> >> That is, with respect to the target behavior only, if punishment >> would eliminate the behavior more effectively than reinforcement >> of alternate behaviors. I suppose 'more effectively' would >> probably have to be qualified: Perhaps to mean in the shortest >> time, with minimum number of applications to achieve behavior >> change, and permanence of the results (lack of spontaneous recovery) >> >> My other point was, I suppose, if this has been explored in >> behavior analysis, or if it hasn't really been explored because of >> ethical treatment of humans and other animals. >> >> Bringing it back to the realm of practicality: Perhaps THE MOST >> effective behavior change can be attained through a combination of >> reward and punishment but punishment is not pursued in combination >> with reinforcement of alternate behavior because, as you >> mentioned, it is difficult to implement properly, it has >> undesirable consequences, or is it mostly because it offends >> cultural sensibilities. >> >> --Mike >> >> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Paul Brandon <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Paul Brandon <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [tips] Extinction >> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" >> <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 4:58 PM >> >> >> Yes -- almost as effective as a bullet in the head. >> But since the side effects of punishment include conditioned >> emotional effects and avoidance behaviors, I'm not sure what the >> point is. >> Punishment would be the best available intervention only within a >> limited range of life threatening situations that couldn't be >> addressed by restructuring the environment. >> Remember that in practice punishment is almost inevitably paired >> with negative reinforcement (doing something that escapes or >> avoids the punisher) so that pure punishment is very hard to >> implement (to put it bluntly). >> It's more than just ethics. >> >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Michael Smith wrote: >>> >>> Yes. >>> But what I was interested in is the stopping of behavior. >>> If we ignore any side effects including physical maiming if >>> appropriate for the punishment and we don't care about the >>> individual, which is more effective. >>> >>> So. more from a theoretical perspective. What would eliminate a >>> behavior most effectively (again we don't care about side effects >>> or the individual concerned) postitive punishment delivered >>> immediately and as severely as possible, or reinforcement of an >>> incompatible behavior (or not rewarding the un-desired behavior). >>> >>> I would imagine it would be positive punishment. So that >>> extinction being more effective must be a qualified statement. >>> >>> Would others agree with this theoretical perspective that >>> positive punishment would be optimal (although ethically untenable)? >>> >>> >>> --Mike >>> >>> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, Paul Brandon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> From: Paul Brandon <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [tips] Extinction >>> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 7:57 AM >>> >>> >>> But then we must deal with punishment's side effects. >>> It's still not optimal. >>> The best alternative when available is the reinforcement of >>> alternative (and incompatible where possible) behavior. >>> This reallocates reinforcement (which we assume is occurring as a >>> consequence of the behavior we're trying to eliminate) rather >>> than simply removing or competing with it. >>> Makes better ecological sense. >>> >>> On Jan 5, 2009, at 11:53 PM, Michael Smith wrote: >>>> With regard to the note on extinction. >>>> >>>> With 121 posts since the last time I logged on, I must admit I >>>> didn't read a lot of them. But somehwere in the feeding frenzy >>>> thread about M. Sylvester someone mentioned using extinction >>>> rather than punishment because it has been shown to be more >>>> effective. >>>> >>>> Would it be fair to say that extinction is more effective than >>>> punishment because we can't ethically use punishment optimally? >>>> That is, immediate and as severe as possible? Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
