All Right! Thats great. BTW. Could you recommend some books on learning but particularly behavioral analysis (applied & theoretical). I am looking to read a few books in the summer and wanted to brush up on this area. Thanks --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, 2:29 PM 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
