"Punishment" in psychology
Cognitee
Dear Tim,
Anything that increases the frequency of a behavior is a reinforcer
(sometimes called, a reward) -- no matter what was intended. What
constitute reinforcers and what constitute punishers must be *empirically
established* AND *may differ from individual to individual*. PERIOD.
This is foremost among that which Skinner taught
On the matter of extinction: There is still a philosophical question
here. I am well aware of Skinnerian behaviorism and what is believed
(having read Science and Human Behavior and some subsequent works of
Skinner and other behaviorists, as well). But, it IS a real question
whether any consequence (*as we presently see or understand them*) is
perceived by the target organism as nothing (or "no effect"). If a
consequence is not "no-effect-on-the-environment" and it reduces the
frequency of a behavior, then technically some punisher may be involved.
I personally have no doubt that we do perceive relatively low yield from
our behaviors (compared to "expectations", conscious and otherwise) and
that extinction is a real thing -- it is certainly an *ASPECT* of the
consequences we often experience. I do acknowledge the phenomenon.
Since you look to insult me (see Tim's post -- quoted AT THE BOTTOM):
When it comes to knowing the basics, Tim, YOU have the problem. If you
are a graduate student in "clinical psychology", you damed well better
know what I said in paragraph one (above) -- and you clearly didn't. It
is essential knowledge. It is only you with basic concept problems. You
are far from being in any position
to criticize me. You have minimal knowledge. I have an academic degree,
30 years of work in the field, and TWICE what was required for my academic
degree (as far as formal learning is concerned). Any problems I have
everyone, most everyone has (e.g. with philosophical questions).
I *meant* "aversive", throughout my previous post; I just made a
spelling error. Something being aversive, in psychology's sense, is
SURELY not associated with something being harassing or abusive AND I will
remind you that this was (MISTAKENLY) Nancy's view (and the view *I* was
opposing).
P.S. Before you take on the position of a expert on Skinner, just because
you think you can pretend to, be sure you know the basics of Skinner so I
don't make a complete fool out of you (which I will tend to do if wrongly
attacked). Another suggestion: Avoid insulting a psychology instructor
with over 7 years experience teaching the discipline.
Nancy's post, to which I had responsed was:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Cognitee wrote:
>
> > Nancy,
> > Punishment technically is simply anything that reduces the frequency of
> > a behavior -- as you should know (and may know). Anything that does that
> > is "punishment" with respect to THAT behavior. Punishment itself occurs
>
> No, this isn't strictly true. Lack of reinforcement also reduces the
> frequency of a behavior, but is not considered to be punishment.
> Punishment is also aversive. Because it is aversive, it tends to evoke the
> emotional response of fear and thus would be considered threatening.
>
> You are correct that one cannot determine whether a stimulus is likely to
> be experienced as aversive (or punishment) except by looking at the
> response to that stimulus, but that is not the same thing as saying that
> anything that reduces behavior is punishment. That is reasoning from the
> consequent to the antecedent, which is a logical fallacy. Consider the
> following example:
>
> Punishment reduces behavior
> This stimulus reduces behavior
> This stimulus must be punishment
>
> A zebra has stripes
> This skunk has stripes
> This skunk must be a zebra
>
> Nancy
My response to Nancy's post (above) was:
> Dear Nancy,
> If a consequence involves SOMETHING, a thing (i.e. something of
> substance), and that reduces the frequency of a behavior, it IS a
> punishment with respect to that behavior. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF
> PUNISHMENT (PERIOD). Extinction is another process (supposedly) that
> supposedly involves some behavior of the target organism having *NO*
> result or no substantial effect, leading to its reduction in frequency.
> (Or, the extinction element could be considered this ASPECT of the
> consequences, I just described.) If you are submitting that there is no
> such thing as a consequence involving no substance (i.e. involving
> "nothing" as the consequence), fine. That is a problem with behavioristic
> concepts and NOT my problem.
> You are absolutely **incorrect** in saying that a punishment must be
> aversive (in any sense of being consciously something not liked). This is
> simply a error in your knowledge. And since punishment is an everyday
> thing that may not seem adversive, it proves my point to say that to
> "threaten" punishment IS NOT to threaten anything inappropriate. ALSO:
> The law "threatens" truely adversive punishment, yet this is not
> inappropriate. I had some of this in mind for those committing libel.
Tim, your response to me in spp was:
> >On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> >
> >> Nancy,
> >> Punishment technically is simply anything that reduces the frequency of
> >> a behavior -- as you should know (and may know). Anything that does that
> >> is "punishment" with respect to THAT behavior. Punishment itself occurs
>
> In the operant conditioning perspective, punishment is the application of
> a stimulus following a behavior in order to decrease the probability that
> the behavior will occur again. Other options for extinguishing behavior
> include extinction, which is the withdrawal of positive reinforcement, as
> well as overcorrection, response cost, differential reinforcement for
> other behaviors, etc.
>
> You are referring to an "aversive" stimulus; the term "aversive" in this
> context is not descriptive of the stimulus itself but describes its effect
> on the target behavior. However, "aversion" and "punishment" are not
> synonymous in the technical literature.
>
> --
> A pistol shot, at five o'clock the bells of Heaven ring.
> Tell me what you done it for?
> No, I won't tell you a thing.
AND, Tim:
Your other response in sci.psychology.misc was:
> In article <good_brad-221...@ts007d09.min-mn.concentric.net>,
> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Nancy,
> > If a consequence involves SOMETHING, a thing (i.e. something of
> >substance), and that reduces the frequency of a behavior, it IS a
> >punishment with respect to that behavior. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF
> >PUNISHMENT (PERIOD).
>
> What about a punishment that increases the frequency of a behavior? I
> refer you to the studies about punishing children for temper tantrums.
> When punished for tantrumming, the frequency increases. When the tantrums
> are simply ignored, they decrease in frequency. Is spanking a child for
> throwing a tantrum *not* a punishment because it doesn't have the intended
> effect? If it's not, then what do you think it is?
>
> >Extinction is another process (supposedly) that
> >supposedly involves some behavior of the target organism having *NO*
> >result or no substantial effect, leading to its reduction in frequency.
>
> Extinction is a specific technique of operant conditioning, not a
> "supposed" techinique. It is well-documented in the research literature
> (see Skinner, 1938 and also Skinner, 1953, among other references). Any
> true SCIENTIST in the field of psychology (let alone a psychology
> professor) would know this. Why don't you? Extinction involves
> withholding all reinforcement from a behavior to reduce that behavior,
> based on the operant principle that a behavior which fails to produce a
> positive reinforcement will eventually cease.
>
> >(Or, the extinction element could be considered this ASPECT of the
> >consequences, I just described.) If you are submitting that there is no
> >such thing as a consequence involving no substance (i.e. involving
> >"nothing" as the consequence), fine. That is a problem with behavioristic
> >concepts and NOT my problem.
>
> This is a masterpiece of obfuscation even for you, Brad. Care to rephrase
> it into something coherent? Are you saying that YOU are right and the
> scientific giants of behavioral psychology are wrong?
>
> > You are absolutely **incorrect** in saying that a punishment must be
> >aversive (in any sense of being consciously something not liked). This is
> >simply a error in your knowledge.
>
> The stimulus used in punishment is typically referred to as "aversive,"
> but this does not refer to the nature of the stimulus itself. "Aversive"
> in the context of behavior therapy refers to the fact that the application
> of the stimulus results in a decrease of the behavior it follows. So,
> while punishment involves an aversive stimulus in all cases, "aversive"
> doesn't necessarily mean a stimulus that is unpleasant or not liked. So,
> your statement that Nancy erred in stating that punishment must be
> aversive is wrong because you are applying the wrong definition to the
> term "aversive" (e.g., you are talking about behavioral psychology but
> misusing the terminology).
>
> >And since punishment is an everyday
> >thing that may not seem adversive, it proves my point to say that to
> >"threaten" punishment IS NOT to threaten anything inappropriate. ALSO:
> >The law "threatens" truely adversive punishment, yet this is not
> >inappropriate. I had some of this in mind for those committing libel.
>
> Your theories of psychology are more fun than a barrel of monkeys, Brad.
> "Adversive" and "aversive" are two different words, Brad, with distinctly
> different meanings. Was your transfer from one to the other a Freudian
> slip?
>
> --
> The wheel is turning and you can't slow it down-
> you can't let go and you can't hold on.
> You can't go back and you can't stand still
> and if the thunder don't get you then the lightning will!
>
> -Robert Hunter
Cognitee
P.P.S. Of course SOME punishments are harassing or abusive, but this does
not make the "threat" of punishment "a threat of something harassing or
abusive."
All men are mortal. Socrates was a man and mortal. But not all men are
Socrates. (NEEDLESS TO SAY -- though **I** may be !!!)
In article <good_brad-221...@ts002d21.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Joseph P. Arco
Cognitee wrote:
[deleted]
>
> All men are mortal. Socrates was a man and mortal. But not all men are
> Socrates. (NEEDLESS TO SAY -- though **I** may be !!!)
>
[balance deleted]
Wow, ...what a rush; now Bradley Jesness thinks he may be Socrates!
" Will the real Socrates please stand up." -quote from TV show.
Mark Haselgrove
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Tim,
<Small snip>
> On the matter of extinction: There is still a philosophical question
> here. I am well aware of Skinnerian behaviorism and what is believed
> (having read Science and Human Behavior and some subsequent works of
> Skinner and other behaviorists, as well). But, it IS a real question
> whether any consequence (*as we presently see or understand them*) is
> perceived by the target organism as nothing (or "no effect"). If a
> consequence is not "no-effect-on-the-environment" and it reduces the
> frequency of a behavior, then technically some punisher may be involved.
> I personally have no doubt that we do perceive relatively low yield from
> our behaviors (compared to "expectations", conscious and otherwise) and
> that extinction is a real thing -- it is certainly an *ASPECT* of the
> consequences we often experience. I do acknowledge the phenomenon.
<much larger snip>
Hmmmm..
What about latent inhibition then? Here a stimulus is preexposed on its
own to an organism prior to excitatory conditioning. This results in an
attenuation of the CR. Should the pre-exposure stage of the experiment be
regarded as producing a punisher as it reduces the frequency of
responding during conditioning relative to non-preexposed controls?
With regard to extinction, there is now good evidence that the associative
learning that takes place here is an inhibitory association between the
stimulus and its own CR (in Pavlovian conditioning) (see Rescorla,
1996,1997 Quarterly journal of Experimental psychology-B) rather than an
excitatory association between the CS and no-event. If a change of context
is introduced inbetween conditioning and extinction then extinction is
retarded, suggesting that the CS does not become associated with some
all-encompassing nothing at least, but is fairly specific to the context
in which original conditioning took place (I think Geoff Hall has
demonstrated this, although I will have to check) . Also the idea that an
inhibitory association develops between the CS and the US is no longer all
that popular due to the inability of the CS to pass summation and
retardation tests after extinction training (Although Calton, Mitchell and
Schachman, 1996(?) thought they had managed it, their methodology was a
little suspect)
Regards,
Mark Haselgrove.