|
|
|
Greetings LRNASSTers!
Taking a guess that Gary Probst was serious and not attmepting satire,
I'll try my hand at responding to his questions. It is obvious though, that
several of the questions would require much more than the limited space of
an email to answer sufficiently.
> Gary Probst is thinking:
> 1. Are some people unable to be changed by positive reinforcement?
According to Reinforcement THEORY, most people's behaviors can be modified
by positively reinforcing a desired behavior. My personal belief
is that if one understands the variables involved in a particular case,
and if one understands reinforcement theory, one stands a pretty good
chance of modifying another person's behavior -- if the other person sees
value in the modification. High valence is essential to a *sustained*
behavior mod, I believe.
> 2. For those people who are unable to learn from positive reinforcement
> changed or behavior stopped by negative reinforcement?
Eh? What? If you are asking if one can use EITHER positive or negative
reinforcement to modify behavior, the answer is yes and no. It depends on
the variables involved.
It is very important to note that NEGATIVE reinforcement and punishment
are two very different concepts. Negative reinforcement is the ABSENCE of
reinforcement. PUNISHMENT is the imposition of an undesirable outcome in
response to an undesirable behavior.
> 3. Can knowledge of negative reinforcement prevent the need for positive
> reinforcement?
Do you want a term paper here, or a one-liner? (grin) This is an
excellent question; I would suggest that knowledge and/or expectation of
PUNISHMENT (not neg.reinforcement) might mitigate the need for positive
reinforcement, but chances are that you will only be able to extinguish
OLD behaviors, and not promote NEW, desirable ones. Behavior that isn't
rewarded (true negative reinforcement), or is punished, is less likely to
be repeated.
One uses pos. and neg. reinforcment, and punishment, for different
reasons.
On the other hand, if you truly mean NEGATIVE reinforcement (ignoring
behavior) in your question and not punishment, I would posit that the
answer would probably be "no."
I have always thought that when using reinforcement theory, one should
approach a desired state by considering that there are really TWO
behaviors that one needs to contend with: The undesirable behavior (UB)
and the desired behavior (DB). Often people only consider eradicating
neg. behaviors and rewarding pos. behaviors; treating those behaviors in
isolation.
If I want you to close my car door without slamming it, slamming the car
door is an UB of yours that I want to modify. I can approach the problem by
focusing ONLY on the UB and attempting to modify it, which would be dealing
with the UB in isolation. If I choose the strategy of negative
reinforcement and ignore the behavior, the behavior in this example would
probably persist. If I say "Please don't slam the door," and then throw
my arms up in surprise and clap my hands over my ears each time you slam
it, I am dealing with the UB by attempting to modify it with punishment.
OR
I can show you a new behavior (DB) and positively reinforce that
(i.e. "I would appreciate it if you wouldn't slam my car door. Slamming
it has a tendency to loosen the hinges and reduce the airtight
quality of the cab. Just roll the window down a bit and it will close real
easily. Like this. Thanks!"); thereby extinguishing the old behavior
(UB) WITHOUT punishment, AND simultaeneously establishing a new behavior (DB)
and rewarding you when you exhibit it. Ergo, we are treating TWO behaviors
instead of just one. This approach should maximize the potential for
reaching the desired outcome.
> 4. What should you do with people who cannot learn from either positive or
> negative reinforcement?<
I believe that people DO and CAN learn from appropriate and
correct application of reinforcement theory. Perhaps a more appropriate
question might be "Is the behavior change permanent or
temporary in relation to the type of reinforcement employed?"
> 5. Which causes learning to take place faster negative or positive
> reinforcement?
It depends on the circumstances.
> 6. If you do not know what type of reinforcement is a person's
> reinforcement style, what type should you use first?<
I don't believe that people have a particular "reinforcement style".
Which reinforcement approach one would use would depend more on the
circumstances than any particular characteristics of the individual.
>7. What type of reinforcement is remembered for a longest period of
time?<
Generally speaking, if a desirable behavior (DB) is positively reinforced
using an appropriate schedule of reward, the DB should be repeated. The
frequency with which the DB is exhibited should be in proportion to the
level of percieved valence by the participant.
Generally speaking, if an undesirable behavior (UB) is negatively
reinforced (ignored) the UB MAY be extinguished. In which case, there is
only a temporary need for this memory; although lack of repitition of the
UB may persist, the memory may not.
Generally speaking, if an UB is punished (P) it may or may not be
"remembered" depending upon the relationships between:
* the severity of the punishment
* the appropriateness of the use of punishment in this case
* the need for the punishment to be "remembered"
The level of recidivism of a behavior after reinforcement theory and
behavior modification have been applied depends upon the appropriateness
of the approach and the circumstances surrounding the case (the
participant's perceived need to allow his or her behavior to be modified,
percieved value of the reward, organizational culture and structure, need
for the behavior to be modified as in student violence in the classroom,
etc., etc., etc.).
DESIRED OUTCOMES as reasons for behavior mod. are also deciding
factors. Many folks suggest that reinforcing or treating an UB that
produces fear will only last (be "remembered") as long as necessary.
However, if you track me down and permanently tie my right arm behind my
back as punishment for typing a wrong answer on this test, I will remember the
reason for only having one remaining arm, forever. But, did the punishment
equate to the UB? Would the punishment cause me to give correct answers
in the future? Did the relationship between the type of punishment and
the UB, and the choice of punishment (P) as a reinforcer equate to the
Desired Outcome you hoped to accomplish?
Enough already. I get the distinct impression that you are toying with
us, Gary. If so, then I have just inflicted significant punishment on
myself for not seeing the trap and consequently answering the
questions (UB) and I will be very reluctant to answer such questions again
(modified behavior). I won't be angry, but I'll be chagrined and may
even chuckle about it. But -- I will have learned not to be so eager to answer
such questions; an important lesson. (grin)
If you were truly curious, Gary, then I hope this is more helpful than it
is confusing.
Pat Schutz
|
|
|
Archives |
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
|
|
