Back to Blog
Negative reinforcement examples aspirin6/29/2023 ![]() ![]() Moreover, reinforcers always involve a range of potential consequences, and we are often uncertain about the relative contribution of each to strengthening effects. Regardless of the ease with which we can observe the consequences of responding, in all cases the addition of a stimulus to the environment of necessity requires its previous absence and, symmetrically, the removal of a stimulus requires its presence. The ambiguity inherent in the positive–negative distinction is not limited to cases involving reference to unobservable events. We are concerned with a different issue: the merits of designating reinforcers as positive or negative simply on the basis of whether the procedure involves onset or offset of stimuli. This is the standard practice in behavior-analytic research, and we are not arguing against it. We noted in our article and repeated in our previous response that it is customary and generally preferable to focus on consequences that are directly observable when we are talking about reinforcers. Nakajima has phrased the issue incorrectly. “The heat is a physical entity within the rat's environment but ‘coldness’ is a hypothetical state of the rat” (p. Along the same lines, any questions about the reinforcer when a rat's responding turns on a heat lamp in a cold environment are resolved in favor of heat onset (primary) rather than cold termination (secondary). Similarly, “money is also material for people, but ‘poverty’ is secondarily defined” (p. His position is that any ambiguities can be easily resolved by focusing on changes that can be directly observed and manipulated alternative changes are secondary because they are based on “speculations.” Thus, when a rat's responses produce food pellets with the consequence that a period of food deprivation is terminated, the pellets are “countable,” whereas reductions in hunger are no more than “a guess of the rat's internal state” (p. Nakajima (2006) defends the traditional distinction between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of the introduction and removal of stimulus consequences. We thank them for further broadening the discussion. ![]() However, both Nakajima and Staats rephrase the issues in ways that call for a further response. ![]() A rereading of our original article and our previous response to our critics will reveal that much of the ground has already been covered. Since then, the journal has received two more thoughtful contributions that appear in this issue ( Nakajima, 2006 Staats, 2006). Most notably, the discussion showed how difficult it is to arrive at a set of rules that can identify a reinforcer as positive or negative. We believe that this dialogue represented a constructive step toward clarification of an important concept within behavior analysis. Seven distinguished behavior analysts commented on our article, and their comments and our response to them are already in print ( Baron & Galizio, 2006 Chase, 2006 Iwata, 2006 Lattal & Lattal, 2006 Marr, 2006 Michael, 2006 Sidman, 2006). In a previous issue of The Behavior Analyst, we discussed the ambiguities that surround the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement ( Baron & Galizio, 2005 see also Michael, 1975). ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |