Contrast negative reinforcement with punishment

Hello,

Could anyone please provide any pointers on how to answer this essay question? I don't feel that I have written enough.

Thanks!

Essentially negative reinforcement and punishment are exactly opposite. Negative reinforcement means taking away something of discomfort where as punishment means adding discomfort. In negative reinforcement you try and remove the discomfort to attain a certain change in the behavior whereas in punishment you add discomfort so that there is a change in behavior for example A child hates vegetables and is throwing a tantrum (the behavior) so the parents decide to remove the vegetables (discomfort) or the parents tell the child he is grounded (adding a discomforting situation).

Actually that's not explained quite right. You can have positive and negative reinforcement, like you can have positive and negative punishment

Positive = give something
Negative = take something away

Reinforcement = increase the likelihood of a behaviour occurring
Punishment = decrease the likelihood of a behaviour occurring

In that example, taking away the vegetables would be reinforcement, because the child doesn't want to eat the vegetables and they are taken away and so removing the discomfort that caused the behaviour. Grounding would be an example of negative punishment though, because you are taking away their freedom. An example of positive punishment would be smacking a child, or giving them an unpleasant noise (not advocating any of these!). Generally speaking, Applied Behaviour Analysis (where these ideas come from) recommend that punishment is not as effective as reinforcement, so normally undesired behaviours are ignored rather than punished

I agree but OP clearly said contrast between Punishment and negative reinforcement, it was my mistake though to not include negative punishment and positive punishment. But isn't it true that negative and positive reinforcement essentially mean the same thing because take the example of the same by taking away the vegetables you are taking away discomfort but doesn't that mean you are adding comfort? also say a child wants a toy and is misbehaving in the store so you decide to buy the child the toy (positive reinforcement) but by buying the child aren't you taking away the discomfort of the child also?

I worked in ABA for nearly 2 years, and I know that many people have misconceptions about it. I didn't say that negative and positive reinforcement mean the same thing. One adds something and one takes something away. So with a food analogy, giving a child chocolate is positive reinforcement and taking the vegetables away is negative reinforcement. And it's generally not discomfort that a child is experiencing - it is a learned behaviour. They know that when they do X, someone else does Y, which is what they want to happen. Ignore the taking away of discomfort - the consequence is that in the case of reinforcement, the child gets what they want (the toy, or escaping an unpleasant stimulus)

Essentially negative reinforcement and punishment are exactly opposite. Negative reinforcement means taking away something of discomfort where as punishment means adding discomfort. In negative reinforcement you try and remove the discomfort to attain a certain change in the behavior whereas in punishment you add discomfort so that there is a change in behavior for example A child hates vegetables and is throwing a tantrum (the behavior) so the parents decide to remove the vegetables (discomfort) or the parents tell the child he is grounded (adding a discomforting situation).

I agree but OP clearly said contrast between Punishment and negative reinforcement, it was my mistake though to not include negative punishment and positive punishment. But isn't it true that negative and positive reinforcement essentially mean the same thing because take the example of the same by taking away the vegetables you are taking away discomfort but doesn't that mean you are adding comfort? also say a child wants a toy and is misbehaving in the store so you decide to buy the child the toy (positive reinforcement) but by buying the child aren't you taking away the discomfort of the child also?

No I was just confused because I just don't get the real difference between both of them. Say the child does something good so in order to "reinforce" their behaviour you give the child a gift or a toy which is positive because you are giving the child something. In the same context aren't you also taking away the discomfort the child would get if they didn't get the toy or the gift? I'm just confused because by essentially giving the child something you are basically removing the discomfort of the child. I know it makes no sense but I hope you understand and answer my doubt.

Actually that's not explained quite right. You can have positive and negative reinforcement, like you can have positive and negative punishment

Positive = give something
Negative = take something away

Reinforcement = increase the likelihood of a behaviour occurring
Punishment = decrease the likelihood of a behaviour occurring

In that example, taking away the vegetables would be reinforcement, because the child doesn't want to eat the vegetables and they are taken away and so removing the discomfort that caused the behaviour. Grounding would be an example of negative punishment though, because you are taking away their freedom. An example of positive punishment would be smacking a child, or giving them an unpleasant noise (not advocating any of these!). Generally speaking, Applied Behaviour Analysis (where these ideas come from) recommend that punishment is not as effective as reinforcement, so normally undesired behaviours are ignored rather than punished

I worked in ABA for nearly 2 years, and I know that many people have misconceptions about it. I didn't say that negative and positive reinforcement mean the same thing. One adds something and one takes something away. So with a food analogy, giving a child chocolate is positive reinforcement and taking the vegetables away is negative reinforcement. And it's generally not discomfort that a child is experiencing - it is a learned behaviour. They know that when they do X, someone else does Y, which is what they want to happen. Ignore the taking away of discomfort - the consequence is that in the case of reinforcement, the child gets what they want (the toy, or escaping an unpleasant stimulus)

No I was just confused because I just don't get the real difference between both of them. Say the child does something good so in order to "reinforce" their behaviour you give the child a gift or a toy which is positive because you are giving the child something. In the same context aren't you also taking away the discomfort the child would get if they didn't get the toy or the gift? I'm just confused because by essentially giving the child something you are basically removing the discomfort of the child. I know it makes no sense but I hope you understand and answer my doubt.

I also stated that negative reinforcement and punishment could be considered opposite to each other, but I wasn't completely sure if that was correct. Negative reinforcement seems to be behaviour to avoid punishment (something negative), not necessarily to avoid punishment - just an alternative way of getting what they want. For example, answering a question isn't done in order to avoid punishment (which in ABA is generally avoided wherever possible) - if they haven't been punished for something then how would they know to avoid it? Instead, answering the questions would be to (generally) get the reward. Another example would be asking for a break from work gets it, whereas inappropriate work avoidance doesn'twhereas positive reinforcement is based on receiving incentives, chocolate in order to increase certain behaviour. Punishment is the presentation of an aversive stimulus, or removal of a positive stimulus as a result of bad behaviour; positive punishment could be shouting at a child if they did not eat their vegetables, and negative punishment could be that a child would not get their dessert as a result of disobeying to eat vegetables. I hope that this is right. yes that's right

That is a good question actually. I wouldn't think that the child would be in discomfort if their good behaviour didn't get rewarded because wouldn't that just be neutral? They chose to behave in that particular way, and yes they might expect a reward of a toy or etc. as a result, but if they didn't then it's just that this good behaviour wasn't reinforced. I think the basic differences between positive and negative reinforcement is that positive reinforcement adds something that is considered to be rewarding, and negative reinforcement removes something aversive as a result of certain behaviour. that's basically it, although the removed thing may not be adversive as such

Thanks for your answers.

This makes sense.

Another difference that I considered was that reinforcement, e.g. negative in this case, occurs before an actual behaviour is presented. This is because it's purpose is to reinforce the likelihood of a particular behaviour in the future. a behaviour cannot be reinforced (or punished) before it is presented - e.g. a child needs to answer a question before they can be praised However, punishment occurs as a result of behaviour committed beforehand in order to deter that particular behaviour in the future. Is this right? I don't think I am expressing this very well.

I also don't understand what removal of the vegetables actually does as a reinforcement of behaviour. Yes, it removes unpleasant feelings of discomfort but how would it do anything other than that? if a child does not want to eat their vegetables and they shout and it gets taken away - they are far more likely to shout the next time they are presented with vegetables in the hope that they get taken away again It wouldn't improve their behaviour in any such way, would it? The child would just feel glad that they don't have to eat vegetables, thus getting away with not suffering any consequences. I don't think it would reinforce that child to eat vegetables in the future. you're right - this would be an example of (maybe accidentally) reinforcing a behaviour that you do not want to occur - you want them to eat their vegetables, but what they have learned is that they can avoid eating them by shouting (which is what they want)

Do you have any sources about ABA which discusses this, i.e. ignoring bad behaviour and etc. so that I could include it in my essay? anything by Skinner and the Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis are good places to start. It may be helpful to look up Functional Behaviour Analysis/Assessment and antecedents and consequences. A quick search for ABA will bring up websites that may well provide you with other references

Thank you.

talk about theories of learning .


1) negative reinforcement

behaviour (not studying) -> outcome (failing exam)

therefore failing exam neagatively reinforces a behaviour (not studying).

this is the process of how we learn to modify our behaviour and how we learn.

e.g. next time will study (modification of behaviour) so not fail

positive and negative reinforcment is part of operant conditioning which is vital in learning.

you can go into a lot of detail about learning through operant conditioning.


2) punishment

-e.g. outcome is punished

behaviour (not studying) -> outcome (failing exam) -> grounded 10 weeks

behaviour is only changed or suppressed to avoid punishment in future. e.g. child learns to not tell their parents if has exam

i think this therefore is more of classical (palovian) conditioning to learning and is very primative form of learning (kolberg's 1st stage in development).

there are many good areas to go into with punishment - childhood development, abuse, seligmann (learnt helplessness), etc.