Negative Reinforcement and Positive Reinforcement.
The concept of negative reinforcement is notoriously difficult to understand.
Reasons for this difficulty include:
surplus meanings associated with the terms negative and punishment, the fact that Skinner (1938, 1953) described two types of
reinforcement but only one type of punishment, the tendency that
most students have to view reward and punishment in subjective
terms, and Skinner’s (1938, 1953) conflicting definitions of reinforcement and punishment. Pointing out to students that
there are two types of punishment — positive and negative — as
well two types of reinforcement — positive and negative — helps
them learn that negative reinforcement is not a synonym for
punishment.
Surplus Meaning of Negative and Punishment
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines reinforcement
as “the act of strengthening,” clearly a behavioural definition. However, the dictionary also defines negative as “disagreeable” and punishment as “suffering, pain, or loss,” words
That appeal to inner feelings or emotions, rather than to
measurable behaviours. Little wonder, then, that most students (and some psychologists) believe that negative reinforcement refers to the act of punishment — that is, to the
onset of pain or dissatisfaction — rather than an action that
strengthens a response by reducing or terminating an aversive stimulus.
Two Types of Reinforcement but Only One Type of Punishment?
Although Skinner (1953) mentioned two types of reinforcement — positive and negative — he described but one
type of punishment. Positive reinforcement is the technical
term he used in place of reward; however, he did not supply a
technical term to replace punishment.
Given that reward is a symbol for positive reinforcement
and that negative is defined as “something disagreeable,”
many students assume that negative reinforcement should
be the technical term that is synonymous with punishment. Had Skinner provided us with a technical
term for punishment, this confusion might not exist.
Feelings Rather Than Behaviours
To avoid discussing what goes on inside the organism
when reinforcement or punishment occurs, Skinner defined
these concepts in terms of their behavioural consequences.
He (1953) noted, for example, that organisms tend to approach positive reinforcers and escape from punishers. How
ever, it is difficult to convince most students that the organism’s emotions do not mediate the behavioural changes that
Skinner spoke of. Indeed, one question students frequently
ask is, “But why does the organism approach or avoid the
stimulus?” They know full well that they like rewards and
dislike punishers and presume that their consequential behaviours are motivated by their feelings. Most students also
assume that other organisms feel and respond as they do.
Skinner’s Definitions
Most of the time, Skinner (1938, 1974) defined reinforcement as a behavioural consequence that increases the probability that a response will be repeated in the future. He (1971) put it this way: “When a bit of behaviour is followed
by a certain kind of consequence, it is more likely to occur
again, and a consequence having this effect is called a rein
forcer” (p. 27).
Most of the time, too, Skinner spoke of punishment in
terms of its behavioural consequences. Suppose an organism
is punished for making a certain response. The effects of this
punishment are threefold; he said: First, there is a time
limited reduction in the rate at which the organism emits the
undesirable response; second, there is an increase in escape
or avoidance behaviours; and third, if the punishment is
strong enough, the undesirable response actually increases
in strength once punishment is terminated.