[Ray Allis 920910.0845]
The following six posts are from an e-mail list concerned (primarily) with the
use of computers in education. Their struggle for clarification seemed to me
to sort of parallel some recent discussions here.
Ray Allis
----- Begin Included Message -----
···
From @pucc.Princeton.EDU:IPCT-L@GUVM.BITNET Mon Sep 7 08:54:53 1992
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:51:00 EDT
Reply-To: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT%GUVAX.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Org. Electronic Class./Neg. Reinforcement
To: Multiple recipients of list IPCT-L <IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Content-Length: 2394
From: KDF1@PSUVM.BITNET
I am glad that Joseph (Parsons) decided to clarify the distinction
between the concept of "negative reinforcement" and that of
"punishment." I am in complete agreement with the substance of his
clarification, but would seek to re-state it since its present form
is rather brief, and very technical. Those who are not familiar
with psychology as a scientific discipline may welcome a less
technical statement of the concepts.
Quite simply, as defined by American behaviorism, punishment is the
application of unpleasant (i.e. "aversive") stimuli following
performance of a behavior, in order to decrease the frequency with
which that behavior occurs. Organisms "escape" the unpleasant
stimuli by ceasing to perform the behavior which results in it.
Punishment suppresses a given behavior without necessarily
promoting another (except as that other behavior incidentally falls
into the category of an "escape"). This may be significant for
learning in general, since learning most usefully refers to a
specific content learned, and not merely to the suppression of some
previous learning.
On the other hand, negative reinforcement promotes the specific
behavior (albeit also an "escape") which has led to the removal of
aversive stimuli. The difference is one of "proscription" versus
"prescription." Or, re-stated yet again, we may say that generally
speaking, "reinforcement" promotes a given behavior by providing a
positive reward for performing it. In the case of negative
reinforcement, the reward lay not in the presence of something, but
in its removal (i.e. in the absence of aversive stimuli). One can
see, then, that the absence of something, cannot simultaneously
mean its presence, and negative reinforcement cannot be the same as
punishment.
All of this may seem excessively subtle, and I would not want to be
seen as a militant advocate of psychological behaviorism (in fact,
I am a phenomenological existential and humanistic psychologist).
But nearly everyone will admit that human behavior is for the most
part neither simple nor transparent. For the sake of
methodological clarity and scientific progress, behaviorists have
been obliged to refine their operational definition of concepts.
More often than not these efforts have been made in good faith.
Kipling D. Forbes
Department of Philosophy
The Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A.
----- End Included Message -----
----- Begin Included Message -----
From @pucc.Princeton.EDU:IPCT-L@GUVM.BITNET Mon Sep 7 08:58:03 1992
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:53:00 EDT
Reply-To: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT%GUVAX.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Org. Electronic Class./Neg. Reinforcement
To: Multiple recipients of list IPCT-L <IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Content-Length: 1736
From: KDF1@PSUVM.BITNET
I would like to clarify a part of my previous clarification of the
concept of "negative reinforcement."
I wrote: <we may say that generally speaking, "reinforcement"
promotes a given behavior by providing a positive reward for
performing it. In the case of negative reinforcement, the reward
lay not in the presence of something, but in its removal (i.e. in
the absence of aversive stimuli). One can see, then, that the
absence of something, cannot simultaneously mean its presence, and
negative reinforcement cannot be the same as punishment.>
The clarified statement should read: we may say that generally
speaking, "reinforcement" promotes a given behavior by providing a
positive reward for performing it. In the case of negative
reinforcement, the reward lay not in the presence of something, BUT
IN THE ABSENCE OF SOMETHING ELSE (i.e. in the absence of aversive
stimuli). One can see, then, that the absence of something
(aversive stimuli), cannot mean the simultaneous presence of the
same thing (aversive stimuli), and that negative reinforcement
cannot be the same as punishment.
Frankly, I think most people would have accurately interpreted the
first version, in so far at it was capable of being accurately
interpreted. However, the "clarified" version probably exemplifies
a shift from a rhetorical mode of communication to a more strictly
logical one. I need hardly add that formal logic will not always
suffice for all forms of human communication ^ but feel constrained
to note also that the limits of a dialectical logic (if that be not
too much of a redundancy) has not yet been fully explored.
Kipling D. Forbes
Department of Philosophy
The Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A.
----- End Included Message -----
----- Begin Included Message -----
From @pucc.Princeton.EDU:IPCT-L@GUVM.BITNET Tue Sep 8 08:43:06 1992
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:03:00 EDT
Reply-To: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT%GUVAX.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Org. Electronic Class. / Neg. Reinforcement
To: Multiple recipients of list IPCT-L <IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Content-Length: 1977
From: Karen O'Quin <OQUINK@SNYBUFVA.BITNET>
Examples of punishment and negative reinforcement:
For negative reinforcement, probably the easiest example is that
of putting up your umbrella in order to keep the rain off. The
behavior is increased (which makes it reinforcement of some type),
in order to keep away an aversive consequent (rain on your new suit).
If the behavior increases in frequency, it is by definition
reinforcement. (With positive reinforcement, the consequent is
positive).
In fact, the whole concept of negative reinforcement is illustrated
by the old joke about therapy: The client tells the therapist
that clapping his hands keeps the elephants away. The therapist says
"But there are no elephants around here!" And the client says, "See,
it works!"
Punishment can be identified because the behavior decreases in
frequency because of a negative consequent. Touch a hot stove,
get burned, and your stove-touching behavior will decrease in
frequency.
(To complete all the possibilities, the last category is called
extinction, in which behavior decreases because nothing positive
results. Tell a joke, no one laughs, and the joke-telling behavior
will decrease.)
If behavior increases in frequency, it's reinforcement (either positive
or negative). If behavior decreases in frequency, it's either
punishment or extinction. By the way, to increase consistency, some
textbooks are calling the latter two positive and negative punishment.
Somehow, I just can't get used to those terms!
So that's my PSY 101 lecture on learning for the day!
Karen
=====================================================================
Karen O'Quin, Ph.D. Bitnet: OQUINK@SNYBUFVA
Department of Psychology Internet: OQUINK@SNYBUFVA.CS.SNYBUF.EDU
SUNY College at Buffalo Phone: 716-878-4139
1300 Elmwood Avenue 716-878-6215 (msg)
Buffalo, NY 14222
----- End Included Message -----
----- Begin Included Message -----
From @pucc.Princeton.EDU:IPCT-L@GUVM.BITNET Wed Sep 9 03:57:57 1992
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:52:00 EDT
Reply-To: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT%GUVAX.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Organizing the Electronic Classroom/Neg. Reinforcement
To: Multiple recipients of list IPCT-L <IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Content-Length: 2388
From: KDF1@PSUVM.BITNET
Barbara Marantz' recent formulation of the distinction between
punishment and negative reinforcement is basically correct. She
wrote:
As I understand it, the essential difference between punishment
and negative *reinforcement* is that punishment follows a
response, is "painful" and therefore *decreases* the frequency of
the response it follows. On the other hand, negative
*reinforcement* also follows a response. However, it is
"pleasant" (in that it removes something painful), and, therefore,
*increases* the frequency of the response it follows. That's why
it's called "reinforcement."
I would only caution that behaviorists prefer to speak of "aversive
stimuli" rather than "pain" and "punishment." This is not just an
attempt to gloss over the plain truth. When dealing with young
children or the mentally disabled, stimuli such as a puff of air
blown in the face, or cold water from a water gun (again directed
to the face) can be very effective aversive stimuli; they are
unpleasant, but not necessarily *painful*.
I would also add that in the clinic, or in the treatment
environment in general (this may be a custodial residential
setting) aversive stimuli are seldom used, primarily because of the
dangers of abuse, but also because of what Joseph Parsons mentioned
earlier, namely that extinction and negative reinforcement are
better ways of shaping behavior, and also because of what I
previously said, namely that punishment (i.e. use of an aversive
stimulus) does not necessarily offer a behavioral alternative, but
merely suppresses previous learning.
The speedy suppression of behavior is sometimes desirable, and may
surpass any other consideration. There are cases, for instance, of
autistic children who like to break glass (all kinds -- windows,
mirrors, etc. using only their hands). Obviously, such behaviors
can be dangerous to themselves and to others, and may have to be
suppressed at almost any cost.
Generally, however, one needs approval from a committee comprising
THE WHOLE WORLD in order to use such behavioral programs, and so
for this reason, as well as the more intrinsic ones mentioned
earlier, workers in the field avoid them studiously. They are just
not worth the paperwork and bureaucratic harassment they entail.
Kipling D. Forbes
Department of Philosophy
The Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A.
----- End Included Message -----
----- Begin Included Message -----
From @pucc.Princeton.EDU:IPCT-L@GUVM.BITNET Wed Sep 9 06:54:57 1992
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:44:00 EDT
Reply-To: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT%GUVAX.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Organizing the Electronic Classroom/Neg. Reinforcement
To: Multiple recipients of list IPCT-L <IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Content-Length: 2008
From: HUNT000 <HUNT@UNB.CA>
I want to pose a question that's bothered me for some time
about the distinction between "negative reinforcement" and
"punishment." What's the role here of social transactions?
Kipling Forbes says, "as defined by American behaviorism,
punishment is the application of unpleasant (i.e. 'aversive')
stimuli following performance of a behavior, in order to decrease
the frequency with which that behavior occurs." In a subsequent
message, he says, "'reinforcement' promotes a given behavior by
providing a positive reward for performing it." What concerns me
is the unattributed passive verbs -- "the application of,"
"promotes . . . by providing."
After all, somebody "applies," somebody "provides" it, and
if I'm a person I'm likely to be extremely aware of that
(responding to social situations is people's stock in trade).
It seems to me that the real difference between "negative
reinforcement" and "punishment" is that to call it "punishment"
acknowledges that someone is doing it to someone else. But it
also seems to me that the normal stance in behaviorist theory
doesn't have any room for that distinction, because the social
transaction is bracketed out. That's ok for rats and pigeons,
who don't engage in social transactions, and don't know the
difference between a universe which rains on them and a person
who pours water on them. But people? I don't resent the
universe; I do resent the experimenter.
Sorry, that doesn't sound as much like a question as I
thought it would.
-- Russ
_~|__
Russell A. Hunt _~|__)_ __)~|__ Learning and Teaching
Department of English )_ __)_|_)__ __) Development Office
St. Thomas University | )____) | EMAIL: hunt@unb.ca
Fredericton, New Brunswick___|____|____|____/ FAX: (506) 450-9615
E3B 5G3 CANADA \ / PHONE: (506) 452-7700
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- End Included Message -----
----- Begin Included Message -----
From @pucc.Princeton.EDU:IPCT-L@GUVM.BITNET Wed Sep 9 10:33:40 1992
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:15:00 EDT
Reply-To: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From: Interpersonal Computing and Technology
<IPCT%GUVAX.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Organizing the Electronic Classroom/Neg. Reinforcement
To: Multiple recipients of list IPCT-L <IPCT-L%GUVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Content-Length: 2581
From: Danny Choriki <DAC@aquila.gc.cuny.edu>
Hi,
From: HUNT000 <HUNT@UNB.CA>
I want to pose a question that's bothered me for some time
about the distinction between "negative reinforcement" and
"punishment." What's the role here of social transactions?
... stuff deleted...
After all, somebody "applies," somebody "provides" it, and
if I'm a person I'm likely to be extremely aware of that
(responding to social situations is people's stock in trade).
It seems to me that the real difference between "negative
reinforcement" and "punishment" is that to call it "punishment"
acknowledges that someone is doing it to someone else. But it
also seems to me that the normal stance in behaviorist theory
doesn't have any room for that distinction, because the social
transaction is bracketed out. That's ok for rats and pigeons,
who don't engage in social transactions, and don't know the
difference between a universe which rains on them and a person
who pours water on them. But people? I don't resent the
universe; I do resent the experimenter.
Actually, your question sounds more like, "What is the role of the
individual's understanding of the social/environmental transaction?"
It is an interesting question, but one that behavioral theory does
not try to address. The reinforcement/response paradigm is a
simplistic view of behavioral responses to environmental stimulus.
What the individual believes or rationalizes as to the motives of the
"environment" would fall into the behaviorist's black box (i.e., the
mind), an issue that behaviorists believe cannot be observed and
therefore should not be subject to scientific inquiry.
Cognitive psychology/science has arisen in this "black hole". They
and cognitively oriented social psychologist would be intrigued by
your question. Your right, behaviorist have bracketed this issue
out.
A comment to everyone in this discussion, remember that your personal
definitions of reinforcement and punishment and the definitions used
by behavioral theory DO NOT HAVE TO BE RELATED. Just like everything
else in science, life and science try to be related, but don't bet on
it! 
ciao,
danny
**********************************************************************
Danny Choriki, Environmental Psychology,
The Graduate School of The City University of New York
33 West 42nd St., Room 1707, New York, NY 10036-8099
Sol III, Milky Way, Local Group
internet: dac@aquila.gc.cuny.edu cis: 71470,3060
cern: dac@cunyvms1 voice: 212.642.2714
----- End Included Message -----