Psyc 320 -- Section 01 -- Spring,1998
Note to readers: The bullets on the far left are the original questions posted by class members. The indented bullets under each of these are the responses of other class members. Click on the title of any posting you wish to read. Also, a few of the questions are about topics not covered in the abbreviated version of the unit found on the NTLF Virtual Companion.
Posted by JO on February 20 1998 at 10:51:26
If properly reworded and thought over, can both operant and Pavlovian conditioning be used to explain the exact same behavior?
Posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 18:28:15
In reply to smooth operator posted by JO on February 20 1998 at 10:51:26
I think you could explain a behavior using both Operant and Pavlovian conditioning. Behavior is so complex that it involves both voluntary and involuntary aspects. Operant explains the voluntary aspects, and Pavlovian explains the involuntary aspects. For example, if you look at the muffy walking her dog example you could explain it by saying that when muffy walks her dog, she gets to drive the car (positive reinforcement) making that behavior increase in the future. The reinforcer is what motivates her to continue the behavior--a voluntary behavior. Or you could say that it is Pavlovian conditioning, higher order of course: UCS UCR having freedom feel good, happy (U)CS (U)CR driving car feel good, happy CS CR walking dog feel good, happy Although these responses are involuntary, the fact that walking the dog leads you to feel good, it should increase the behavior of you walking your dog.
Posted by LF on February 23 1998 at 23:09:28
In reply to Re: smooth operator posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 18:28:15
I agree, I think that a behavior is originally set up by Pavlovian conditioning and operant conditioning will either take the behavior away or reinforce the behavior.
Posted by JAC on February 20 1998 at 02:47:06
Since the Premack Principle was explained in an example of positive reinforcement and I understood it as adding more of an action because it is paired with something that you would normally do quite often anyway. So can this principle be used with negative concepts or punishment and how?
Posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 18:42:28
In reply to Premack...what a name posted by JAC on February 20 1998 at 02:47:06
I had the same question Joe. I was also curious as to how the Premack Principle relates to Pavlovian conditioning, if at all, because a behavior is being paired with one that is a very natural behavior or response. In the reading we had the example of the mouse or rat or something that paired pushing the bar with eating--isn't this similar to the pairing of a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus?
Posted by KR on February 20 1998 at 02:19:48
I am just having some trouble understanding the basic idea of positive and negative. Can someone help me make sence if this all? I think positive as adding to the situation and negative as removing from the situation...is this right sorry this is so basic!! Ahh!
Posted by BP on February 20 1998 at 10:46:08
In reply to Such basic stuff!!! posted by KR on February 20 1998 at 02:19:48
Yep, you're right. Positive punishment and positive reinforcement both add a certain stimulus to the environment, aversive for positive punishment and appetitive for positive reinforcement. In negative punishment and negative reinforcement, certain stimuli are taken away from the environment: appetitive is taken away as a negative punishment and aversive is taken away as negative reinforcement. I hope I didn't confuse you even more.
Posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 18:46:47
In reply to Re: Such basic stuff!!! posted by BP on February 20 1998 at 10:46:08
I agree that you have it right--it is tough to not think of positive and negative qualitatively, such as good and bad.
Posted by SS on February 22 1998 at 22:23:46
In reply to Such basic stuff!!! posted by KR on February 20 1998 at 02:19:48
From what I got out of the reading you are exactly right. We can't look at it as being good and bad, it has to be removing or adding something to the environment.
Posted by LF on February 20 1998 at 02:19:31
I am still confused that sometimes a response may seem like avoidance, but is actually positive punishment. Like in the example as to why someone doesn't go home because they don't like their family. Can anyone explain this to me so I understand?
Posted by LF on February 20 1998 at 14:29:17
In reply to Positive punishment or avoidance?? posted by LF on February 20 1998 at 02:19:31
I am going to rephrase my question. Avoidance isn't positive punishment, but it's almost like you are avoiding positive punishment. Something bad happened to you in the past, so you use negative reinforcement (avoidance) to not experience that again. I think I understand it a little bit better, after class today, but I still feel a little unsure about all of it.
Posted by AH on March 02 1998 at 15:47:42
In reply to Positive punishment or avoidance?? posted by LF on February 20 1998 at 02:19:31
Behaviorist are not interested in what someone doesn't do (like not going home), instead they focus on observable behaviors. There are an unlimited amount of behaviors or actions you don't engage in during a given time, but their is a finite amount of actions and behaviors that one performs during this same time. These, to the behaviorist are what are important. So in this example, being at home is the behavior. And what happens when she is at home: feelings of anxiety and stress are added to the environment. Now she is unlikely to spend as much time at home because her original experiences were forms of positive punishment
Posted by BAS on February 20 1998 at 02:11:02
I guess I have two questions I would like answered. I'll start with the Buffy walking her dog Muffy. Dr. Behavior explained that as Positive Reinforcement. I was quite confused by this...I assumed it was Negative Punishment because Buffy was worse off (had to Walk to the mall) and something was taken from her(couldn't drive car). So, what's going on here? Is Positive Reinforcement also if one variable doesn't do something they in turn don't get to do something? Help!!!! My other question...can the above problem have two operant behaviors in it? For example: Positive Reinforcement and Negative Punishment??????
Posted by CMS on February 22 1998 at 01:32:09
In reply to Were not in Kansas anymore, muffy! posted by BAS on February 20 1998 at 02:11:02
I can totally see where you are coming from!! I can see positive reinforcement in that getting use of the car (positive) will increase the probability (reinforce) that she will walk the dog in the future. BUT--I can also see the negative punishment in that something desirable (car use) in order to decrease the probability of behavior (not walking dog) from happening. I think it is all how you word it...in that respect, I would have to agree that maybe it CAN be two different things at once. Hmmm...
Posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 18:57:31
In reply to Re: Were not in Kansas anymore, muffy! posted by CMS on February 22 1998 at 01:32:09
I see where both of you are coming from, in fact, I think I asked the same question. I think the way we have to look at it is by only looking at behaviors that can be observed. We can observe her walking her dog and getting to drive the car as a result. However, we cannot observe her not walking her dog, or not driving the car. These behaviors are not really behaviors because they never happened. The reading said somewhere that we have to focus on what behaviors do happen in the given situation or else we will become confused by all the things that do not happen in a given situation
Posted by BAS on February 24 1998 at 04:44:15
In reply to Re: Re: Were not in Kansas anymore, muffy! posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 18:57:31
That was a great way to explain it, thanks. My group said the same thing pretty much - just look at what the person can be seen (observed) doing and don't worry about what they aren't doing. I still find this whole thing confusing. It seems you can change the answer just by rewording the sentence. Oh well. That's psych.
Posted by MJM on February 26 1998 at 01:48:42
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Were not in Kansas anymore, muffy! posted by BAS on February 24 1998 at 04:44:15
I know what you are saying, it is hard to keep straight. I especially get confused with situations involving negative reinforcement because your behavior takes something away from the environment that was aversive, which increases that behavior. In an example like "if I get good grades, I don't have to mow the lawn" is not mowing the lawn even a behavior? I thought we wanted to stay away from those "not" behaviors, but in this example in class the TA said this was negative reinforcement. Do you have any ideas for me???
Posted by BRH on February 20 1998 at 02:06:10
Why is it when I will get a hangover I will still go out and engage in the same behavior again. Because you would think that that is a positive punishment of your behavior? Is it because the positive reinforcement of partying is stronger than the positive punishment of feeling all hungover the next morning? Is one stronger than the other I guess is my question?
Posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 19:03:41
In reply to hangovers posted by BRH on February 20 1998 at 02:06:10
I definately think that the positive reinforcement of partying outweighs the positive punishment of a hangover. If you think about it hangovers usually are bearable, enough to be worth all the fun you have when you go out.
Posted by BDP on February 22 1998 at 21:55:17
In reply to Re: hangovers posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 19:03:41
Also, do you think that since having fun and drinking are paired so closely together that a person will associate those two rather than the drinking and the hangover because they are further apart time-wise.
Posted by Melissa Jean Menke on February 23 1998 at 20:38:03
In reply to Re: Re: hangovers posted by Brian David Paukert on February 22 1998 at 21:55:17
Interesting question? I hadn't thought about that. I guess I would think that it is the strength of the pairing rather than the time factor. I am not sure though, maybe we should bring it up in class. It is interesting that we supposedly seek pleasure and avoid pain (hedonism) but in this example the pleasure we seek seems more important than avoid the pain that results.
Posted by Angie Christi Fischer on February 20 1998 at 01:26:20
Are these labels (pos. punishment, neg. reinforcement, etc) relative? this goes back to my first posting with my example about my boyfriend. it seems like you could accurately describe my behavior through positive OR negative punishment (he 'presented' a bad mood, OR he 'withdrew' his good mood)and i decreased my behavior . . . right?
Posted by Jessica Christ Zemple on February 19 1998 at 23:52:29
In our reading it explains it as our behavior with the environment, can it not be with you? For instance, when you stop thinking about an issue because it is upsetting, is that a type of escape, or what? Do you guys have any examples or ideas on this?
Posted by Marie Genevieve Fay on February 19 1998 at 23:18:38
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I am having a REAL tough time with this. I think that I get caught up on little details and try and over- rationalize or whatever. Anyhow, I guess my troubles stem from the fact that I am still not seeing a clear difference between positive punishment and negative reinforcement- punishment/ reinforcement sound so simple but things get so wishy- washy....
Posted by Jennifer Mae Siegel on February 19 1998 at 23:22:36
In reply to grrrrrrrrrrrrrrowl posted by Marie Genevieve Fay on February 19 1998 at 23:18:38
I don't know if this will help or not, but here's how I originally learned to chart this..... give something to environ. take something from envir. (positive) - (negative) - Increase - behavior POSITIVE - NEGATIVE (reinforcement) REINFORCEMENT - REINFORCEMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Decrease behavior POSITIVE - NEGATIVE (punishment) PUNISHMENT - PUNISHMENT
Posted by CS on February 20 1998 at 00:34:23
In reply to grrrrrrrrrrrrrrowl posted by MF on February 19 1998 at 23:18:38
How about this? POSITIVE PUNISHMENT--giving something bad in order to take away a behavior...ie. hot stove--burn NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT--taking something good away in order to take away a behavior. scolding a child to stop swearing, for instance. POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT--giving something to encourage behavior...ie. giving praise for cleaning your room which encourages future cleaning, HA! NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT--taking something bad away to encourage a behavior --(ESCAPE)...good behavior prompted parents to take away some limitations of freedom (bad) thus encouraging the good behavior --(AVOIDANCE)...coming home on time so that parents wouldn't punish you, thus avoiding punishment which encourages you to come in on time Do you think that was ok? Is it a little clearer?
Posted by BAS on February 20 1998 at 02:23:48
In reply to Re: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrowl posted by CS on February 20 1998 at 00:34:23
That was great Christine! It really cleared up a lot. Thanks!
Posted by JS on February 19 1998 at 22:58:51
As children my mom gave us Cheerios to reduce our behavior of making noise during church. Cheerios are added to environment so it's positive and decreasing our noise would make it punishment. What if I were to say that Cheerios added to the environment still making it positive but there was an increase in the behavior of being quiet. This would make it positive reinforcement wouldn't it??? Can I switch things around like that and if so, when do we ever know which condition to use?
Posted by AH on March 02 1998 at 15:37:26
In reply to Cheerios! posted by JS on February 19 1998 at 22:58:51
I believe the diagnosis of negative reinforcement is most accurate on the when explaining the behavior of the mother. I would focus on the fact that the mother is trying to prevent the aniexty and embrassment associated with making noise in church, and is more likely to do it again. As for the children, the reason why they engage in their behavior is proable most likely due to positive reinforcement. For remaining quiet in church, their behavior is likely to continue because they are adding something diserable to the environment.
Posted by AH on March 02 1998 at 15:37:26
In reply to Cheerios! posted by JS on February 19 1998 at 22:58:51
I believe the diagnosis of negative reinforcement is most accurate on the when explaining the behavior of the mother. I would focus on the fact that the mother is trying to prevent the aniexty and embrassment associated with making noise in church, and is more likely to do it again. As for the children, the reason why they engage in their behavior is proable most likely due to positive reinforcement. For remaining quiet in church, their behavior is likely to continue because they are adding something diserable to the environment.
Posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 22:30:40
My question: In his section on negative punishment, Skinner said that since he got a fine for making a U-turn in St. Joe he stays away from(but doesn't avoid)anything that reminds him of the punishment. How is staying away, different from avoiding? Is staying away more of a deliberate and concsious decision than avoiding? Does it appeal to some higher level of intellect? Help me Ann Landers!
Posted by MF on February 19 1998 at 23:22:00
In reply to The Ann Landers of psychology posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 22:30:40
Maybe he isn't avoiding it because he still goes there if he has to, instead of totally staying away. (it's only a guess- thats a good question)
Posted by BAS on February 20 1998 at 02:27:24
In reply to Re: The Ann Landers of psychology posted by MF on February 19 1998 at 23:22:00
I thought that was a great question! I thought avoidance was the action taken to prevent something bad from happening. The past action was making a Uturn in St. Joseph which had an aversive effect on him. So, he would avoid making another Uturn in St. Joseph because of past experience buy merely stay away from the town because it reminded it of his negative experience?????Eeeeks..just a wild guess!
Posted by AH on February 23 1998 at 22:46:13
In reply to Re: Re: The Ann Landers of psychology posted by BAS on February 20 1998 at 02:27:24
Thanks for the imput guys! I'm still not real clear on it, but I think I might be getting closer to the end of the tunnel.
Posted by RLM on February 19 1998 at 22:24:16
Since one of our most recent vocabulary words is "contingent," can someone help me to figure out what "contingency contracting" is, when used in a therapeutic context? Here's what I think. For example, let's say we have a client who is a pathological liar. I think that the client figures out something that they find aversive, such as paying $5, and makes a deal with his/her therapist that if the client engages in the nondesirable behavior (lying), he/she will have to give the therapist $5. I think this is an example of negative reinforcement, because by not lying, the client does not have to give the therapist $5 (removing an undesirable stimulus). It is reinforcement because the person is less likely to lie in the future.
Posted by CS on February 24 1998 at 00:27:55
In reply to behavioral therapy posted by RLM on February 19 1998 at 22:24:16
Sooo....what exactly do you think it is?
Posted by AG on February 19 1998 at 22:17:32
I read B.F. Skinner's Journal entry "Muffy walks the dog". In this B.F. said that by not being able to drive the car because she didn't walk the dog could possibly be positive reinforcement because if she did walk the dog she would get the car. My question is, couldn't this be negative punishment. She is getting the car taken away from her, making her situation undesirable, thereby decreasing the probability, under similar circumstances of not walking the dog again. Since she is getting a punishment from her parents, negative punishment as the behavioral response seems like the better choice. What do you think?
Posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 22:39:49
In reply to For God's sake walk the poor dog! posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 22:17:32
Well, Muffy wants the car right? So won't she do whatever she has to in order to get the car? By walking the dog she gets the car. So the way I see it, walking the dog is adding a desirable behavior because as a result she gets the car (positive). Since she likes to use the car to scope the guys, it is likely that she will continue to walk the dog (reinforcement). Any comments?
Posted by AG on March 03 1998 at 21:20:05
In reply to Re: For God's sake walk the poor dog! posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 22:39:49
I think I understand it better now, when we were talking in class about observable behaviors, it dawned on me. By not walking the dog, there was no behavior there. And in response to the thought that she wants the car to scope guys, well, she better have a nice car, 'cause with a name like Muffy, it sounds like she might have problems! See ya in class
Posted by AS on February 22 1998 at 22:25:27
In reply to For God's sake walk the poor dog! posted by AG on February 19 1998 at 22:17:32
Actually, I can see it happening both ways. I think that if you look at it either way and defend it well, it could be either. I see both points as being correct.
Posted by AS on February 19 1998 at 20:09:07
If someone could take a minute and explaine Premack Principle I would really appreciate it? I believe it has something to do with the order of stimulus-response, but I am finding this principle hard to grasp. Thanks!
Posted by KR on February 22 1998 at 21:29:12
In reply to Premack???? posted by AS on February 19 1998 at 20:09:07
Amy, I get confussed with this too. I think that it is a pairing of two things that wouldn't have been paired naturally and there is a higher order it seems like as to why. My answer is confussing to me however and I could really use a better understanding of this!
Posted by LF on February 23 1998 at 23:12:12
In reply to Re: Premack???? posted by KR on February 22 1998 at 21:29:12
I'm not sure if I am right, but I think the Premack principle just states that something we normally wouldn't think was the most fun to do has been paired with something fun or something that we like to do. I used an example in my UGLI--and I am not sure if it was right, but I used the example of people who smoke. Smoking is not the most attractive thing in the world. It stinks, you have to go outside, you hurt your body, etc...but humans do enjoy being social, the relaxation cigarettes give, etc. I am not sure if this is right, but it's how I see it. Although smoking a cigarette would not be the most wonderful thing in the world, because there are positive aspects, people will smoke.
Posted by CS on February 24 1998 at 00:23:31
In reply to Premack???? posted by AS on February 19 1998 at 20:09:07
From what I gathered from the reading, it is merely just going through with a lesser desired behavior in order to get to a more desired behavior. Such as, maybe, Muffy hated to walk the dog, but she loved to have the car to "scope out" the guys...so she will have to go through the lesser desired behavior (walking the dog) in order to get to her more desired behavior (scoping out the guys). Does that help any?
Posted by MJ on February 19 1998 at 19:30:54
I was just curious as to which conditioning elicits a desired response with more accuracy? Does Pavlovian Conditioning control our behavior more than Operant Conditioning?(or vice versa)
Posted by BH on February 19 1998 at 21:12:15
In reply to So many choices posted by MJ on February 19 1998 at 19:30:54
I was wondering that too, my question is do these two types of conditioning kind of work together somehow to formulate our behavior?
Posted by MJ on February 20 1998 at 01:11:39
In reply to Re: So many choices posted by BH on February 19 1998 at 21:12:15
I think that you are correct in thinking that there is somewhat of a link between the two in overall behavior. I think that behavior is so complex that there are multiple factors in behavior. I was just wondering if one of the two were more affective.
Posted by RW on February 19 1998 at 19:24:57
Are all these behaviors reinforced before they are punished?
Posted by MJ on February 19 1998 at 19:34:39
In reply to Reinforcements posted by RW on February 19 1998 at 19:24:57
That is a very ponderous question. I thought about it for awhile, and it kind of seems like "...the chicken or the egg?" question. In my opinion, I think that a behavior doesn't necessarily need to be reinforced before being punished. I think that a person can just try some new behavior and see what the reaction is and then decide whether to continue the action or not (via reinforcement or punishment). What is your opinion to your own question?
Posted by RW on February 24 1998 at 12:42:08
In reply to Re: Reinforcements posted by MJ on February 19 1998 at 19:34:39
I think that there needs to be reinforcement before a punishment. In my opinion, I think that people are reinforced either positively or negatively before a particular response.
Posted by LL on February 19 1998 at 15:55:52
I'm a little confused on the escape and avoidance aspects. I can see it in the examples but when it comes to thinking up my own examples.... Plus With the Premack Principle. How would you use the hierarchy on something out side of a lab such as people?
Posted by KR on February 22 1998 at 21:31:29
In reply to Not again!! posted by LL on February 19 1998 at 15:55:52
I can answer the escape and avoidence question I think. When it is an excape, the action is happening NOW. It is a response to what is being done RATHER than in the case of avoidence when you don't do something or do something in order to not have something happen...just like avoiding a situation. It is an action you take BEFORE the situation arises! Hope it helped!
Posted by SS on February 22 1998 at 22:21:03
In reply to Not again!! posted by LL on February 19 1998 at 15:55:52
Leah, The way I understood it, the Premack Principle is only associated with Postive Reinforcement. With Escape and Avoidance, if you are preventing something from happening you are avoiding it, like why do you brush your teeth? Your avoiding getting cavities. If you brush your teeth because you have cavities now and you don't want them to get worse or get anymore that would be escape because you are trying to lessen or make them stop. Just an idea. Hope it helps. Stephanie
Posted by MJM on February 19 1998 at 13:13:54
I am confused about what exactly we look for in trying to decide if a situation is positive/negative punishment/reinforcement. With the Muffy example, why do we say when she walks her dog she gets to drive her car, rather than when she doesn't walk her dog, she doesn't get to drive her car? I would think the first scenario would be positive reinforcement and the second one would be negative punishment? At least, I thought that is how we learned it in Intro. I think I just need an explanation as to why not walking her dog is not considered a behavior--I would think her choice to not walk the dog is a behavior. Does is have to be a visible behavior? Is that the distinction here?
Posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 15:42:17
In reply to HERE WE GO AGAIN... posted by MJM on February 19 1998 at 13:13:54
I have the exact same question. I believe the distinction between the two examples that you gave is one of them involves doing something while the other is consider an unobservable behavior. As Creed said, behavorist are not concerned with what somebody doesn't do (we as people during any given situation don't do countless things). However, they are intrested in the behaviors that I person is engaging in. Thus, the muffy is example is positive reinforcement.
Posted by MJM on February 22 1998 at 19:11:29
In reply to Re: HERE WE GO AGAIN... posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 15:42:17
I think it is more clear now. So do you think that making the decision to not walk the dog is a behavior? I think what you were saying is that it may be a behavior, but since behaviorists cannot observe or study it, they do not concern themselves with it--is that right? Thanks for the followup Darius, it helped a lot!
Posted by BP on February 19 1998 at 02:34:01
I'm having a really hard time grasping the difference between escape and avoidance. They seem to be virtually the same thing to me. Can someone clarify this for me or maybe give an example?
Posted by RLM on February 19 1998 at 22:33:04
In reply to escape/avoidance posted by BP on February 19 1998 at 02:34:01
I think I might be able to help you out. Escape is what happens when something negative is CURRENTLY GOING ON and the person (or animal) does something to stop it. For example, if you were watching some really stupid program/advertisement on TV and changed the channel, you would be escaping the boredom related to watching that dumb show. Avoidance is something you do to skip having to deal with the negative stimulus altogether. Here's another real-life example. Let's say you overheard your ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend talking about how he/she would be going to Sal's this Thursday night. Since seeing that person makes you uncomfortable, you go to The La instead. You did something to PREVENT THE AVERSIVENESS BEFORE IT GOT STARTED. Hope that helps.
Posted by BP on February 20 1998 at 10:38:48
In reply to Re: escape/avoidance posted by RLM on February 19 1998 at 22:33:04
Yes, it is much clearer now. Thank you very much.
Posted by AH on February 19 1998 at 00:13:33
I think I may be a little bit confused! Like Obi Wan said in Stars Wars "You must unlearn what you have learned. Past classes have looked at this subject matter superficially. It seems to me that the wording of the question has a lot to do with whether or not it is positive punishment, negative punishment, postive reinforcement, or negative reinforcement. Take this scenario for example: When I was young, if I got good grades, then I didn't have to do yard work. What kind of operant conditioning do you think it is? It seemed at first that it was negative reinforcement; my behavior (getting good grades) is observable, and by doing so I am creating a more desirable situation (reinforcement) and taken away a stimulus (having to do yard work. But what if I worded it another way: When I was young, when I got bad grades, then I would have to do yard work. This seems to be more like positive punishment although it is the exact same scenario only pharsed differently. Somebody Help Me!
Posted by SS on February 18 1998 at 23:06:27
My question is concerning the Premack Principle. I understand the use of the hierarchy on the rat example and how that works, but wouldn't it be hard to determine what the heirarchy would be for a human, outside of the lab?
Posted by RW on February 24 1998 at 12:50:53
In reply to Is Premack wacked? posted by SS on February 18 1998 at 23:06:27
I don't think that it would be hard to understand the heirarchy on a human outside of the lab. I think that it would just take observations of humans in their natural setting to determine their most commeon behaviour to the least.
Posted by CL on February 18 1998 at 01:06:07
I am curious as to what is meant in the text when it says, when more than one person is involved the people are acting under different contingencies. Does this mean that say person A gives person B a candy bar: then the action is negative punishment for A, and positive reinforcement for B? Does it simply mean that what one person does will be appetitive or aversive for him and the opposite for the other person?
Posted by BP on February 15 1998 at 18:20:41
Is that 2x2 contingency table right? It has negative punishment as an appetitive stimulus. I would have thought that all punishment is aversive and all reinforcement is appetitive. It seems that the text says it this way too and that the table is just wrong.
Posted by CS on February 20 1998 at 00:28:55
In reply to contingency table posted by BP on February 15 1998 at 18:20:41
It is considered appetitive (I think) because it is removing something UNDESIRABLE from the environment which increases the probability of the behavior to occur again in the future. In this essence, it is a desirable measure...does that make any sense?