Thursday, September 26, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Handout on Negative and Positive Reinforcement
This is a handout I prepared to help my introductory psychology better understand the differences between negative and positive reinforcement.
Negative Reinforcement and Positive Reinforcement
_____________________________________________________________
Negative reinforcement is "one of the most
consistently misunderstood principles of behaviour." Cooper,
Heron, & Heward (2007, p. 255)
"Positive reinforcement is the most important
and most widely applied principle of behaviour analysis." Cooper, Heron, & Heward
(2007, p. 257)
An important requirement for
something to be termed “reinforcement” (whether positive or negative) is that
the behaviour that led to the reinforcement must be strengthened or increased
(Miltenberger, 2008).
Technically, it is possible to say
that when negative reinforcement occurs then positive reinforcement is also
occurring and vice-versa. Take the example of turning off the light at night
time. If you look at it from the perspective of removing the light then
negative reinforcement has occurred.
However, if you look at it from the
perspective of adding darkness then positive reinforcement has occurred. The
behaviour in both cases is the same (pressing the light switch) and the
outcomes are the same too (light is removed and darkness is added) it just
depends on how you look at it.
There have been a number of articles
written about this (Michael, 1975) and recently the subject was discussed again
in a number of published articles in the 2006 Spring edition of The Behaviour
Analyst. All of these articles are freely available to read if you’re curiosity takes you
there (scroll down to the bottom of that linked page to access those
articles).
Retrieved 9/22/13, from http://www.educateautism.com/behavioural-principles/negative-reinforcement.html#.Uj_YRD-4iLc
at Educate Autism, written by Gavin Cosgrave. Gavin currently works as a
Research Consultant for the Eastern Vocational Enterprises (EVE) which
is a programme within the Health
Service Executive (HSE). He has previously worked within an ABA
school teaching children with autism under the supervision of a Behaviour
Analyst. He holds a Higher Diploma in Psychology from Trinity College Dublin, an Honours Degree
in Industrial/Product Design from the National College of Art and
Design, and a FETAC certificate as a Special Needs
Assistant.
References
Cooper, J., Heron, T., &
Heward, W. (2007). Applied Behaviour Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Michael, J. (1975). Positive and
negative reinforcement, a distinction that is no longer necessary; or a better
way to talk about bad things. Behaviourism, 3, 33-44.
Miltenberger, R. (2008). Behaviour
Modification. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Publishing.
__________________________________
Examples of
negative reinforcement and explanations at:
http://www.educateautism.com/behavioural-principles/examples-of-negative-reinforcement.html#
Examples of
positive reinforcement and explanations at:
http://www.educateautism.com/behavioural-principles/positive-reinforcement.html#.Uj_axz-4iLc
Negative Reinforcement vs Positive Reinforcement
A lot of people misunderstand Negative
Reinforcement by confusing it with Punishment.
Remember that Reinforcement is any consequence that
encourages a behavior to continue and a Punishment is any consequence that
discourages a behavior from continuing.
Negative Reinforcement starts with a
negative condition (like pain) that encourages an organism to perform a
behavior that will trigger a reward of relief. The pre-existing negative state
can be natural or induced by a trainer.
Example
of Natural Negative Reinforcement: If a person has a headache, then takes
Tylenol and finds relief, the relief from the headache is reinforcement to take
more Tylenol in the future if the headache returns. This is negative
reinforcement because the person started out in a negative state.
Negative Reinforcement starts with
a negative state and ends with a neutral state.
Positive Reinforcement starts with a
neutral state and ends with a positive state.
In a way, you could say that
Negative reinforcement involves the use of a pre-punishment.
Many scientists in the field of
psychology argue that it is not needed to define the differences between
negative and positive reinforcement because they are both so similar. For
example, if an animal is hungry so you give it some food, you could say that
this was negative reinforcement because he was originally in a negative state
of hunger and now he has food which puts him in a neutral state. You could also
say that this was positive reinforcement because he got a treat that he loves
which probably caused him pleasure.
Example
of Positive Reinforcement:
You tell your nephew that if he says
you’re his favorite uncle you will take him to the Zoo. He then says you are
his favorite uncle and you take him to the zoo. He has been positively
reinforced.
Example
of induced Negative Reinforcement:
You put your nephew in a headlock
and tell him you will only release if he tells you that you are his favorite
uncle. He tells you that you are his favorite uncle and you release.
Which of these two examples do you
think will work to better gain your nephew’s trust?
Written by Jon
Perry, graphic artist/parrot owner, www.featherMe.com; http://www.jonperry.com/
and retrieved 9/22/13, from http://www.featherme.com/index.php/category/bird-blog/parrot-glossary/
__________________________________
An Animal Trainer's Introduction to Operant
and Classical Conditioning by Stacy Braslau-Schneck, MA. This page attempts to explain Operant
Conditioning, and promote the use of Positive Reinforcement and Negative Punishment in animal training.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Online time can hobble brain's important work
Online time can hobble brain's important work
This can't be a good thing; might need more research...
This can't be a good thing; might need more research...
Friday, September 20, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Little Albert study by Watson and Rayner 1920
This was a short research paper I did for my Introduction to Psychology class. The assignment was to view the Youtube video on the Little Albert study and then discuss it in the forums.
Watson, J. B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
The
Little Albert experiment done in 1920 by Watson and Rayner is one of
psychology's most famous and well-known, and is included in nearly every
introductory psychology course. It was done to illustrate how classical
conditioning can be used to condition an emotional response. The three research
questions were: 1. Can an infant be conditioned to fear an animal that appears
simultaneously with a loud, fear arousing sound? 2. Would such fear transfer to other animals
or to inanimate objects? 3. How long
would such fears persist? (Harris, 1979).
On
the other hand, this study has also been criticized widely for many reasons,
and extensive detective work over seven years by psychologist, Dr. Michael
Britt, uncovered multiple reported inaccuracies and distortions (DeAngelis,
2010). In fact, it was not even a true “experiment,” but rather a “pilot study”
(Britt, 2008). Dr. Vassar refers to it as “a well-known piece of social science folklore” and “an example of myth
making in the history of psychology (Harris, 1979).
Some
of the criticisms of this so-called “experiment” are:
There
were multiple methodological flaws and the experimental design and process was
not carefully constructed. Watson and Rayner failed to develop an objective
means to evaluate Albert's reactions, but rather relied on their own subjective
interpretations (Harris, 1979; Cherry, n.d.). It was not a true experiment and was
poorly conducted – it did not have two subjects, two levels of variables, was not
controlled, and was never successfully replicated (Mills, 1998), thus, in actuality,
it was a pilot study. Nor was the study done with an appropriate sample size or
inadequate confidence levels (according to the scientific method). The Little Albert experiment would not be
conducted based on today's ethical standards as it did not meet many of the ethical
requirements (Cherry, n.d.)
The
9-month old baby named Little Albert was identified as Douglas Merritte, the
son of a wet nurse named Arvilla Merritt. Ms. Merritt lived and worked at a
pediatric hospital on the John Hopkins University campus called the Harriet
Lane Home at the time of the experiment in 1920, and received $1 for her baby's
participation. It was discovered that
Little Albert was not the "healthy," "normal" boy Watson claimed.
Verified with medical records from Johns Hopkins University, Little Albert was,
in reality, a neurologically impaired child who suffered from congenital
hydrocephalus, and died at the age of 6 (DeAngelis, 2010). Fridlund (2012) believes that "because
Watson and Rayner tried to condition fear in an infant and made no effort to
follow him after discharge and insure his well-being, the Little Albert study
has always led us to consider basic issues of experimental ethics…but now it
forces us to confront deeper, more disturbing issues like the medical misogyny,
the protection of the disabled and the likelihood of scientific fraud. It's a
story all psychologists can learn from."
There
was no evidence that Little Albert was conditioned to a white rat (the rabbit
was brown), a sealskin coat, fur muffs, white furry gloves, or a teddy bear. Burning
newspapers were also tried by putting in front of Little Albert but with no
noise. Samuelson (1980) wrote that the Santa Claus mask had been played with,
then later it was paired with the steel bar noise, which means it was not
properly conditioned to be generalized.
Little
Albert’s fear was not powerful or phobic, his reactions were not that strong or
lasted very long. He was never unconditioned as there wasn’t enough to
uncondition, and his reactions were extinguished on their own. Attempts to
desensitize and recondition him were with unethical methods, feeding him candy,
milk, cookies. Harris (1979) states that Little Albert’s conditioning was not
true fear conditioning reactions, as he cooed and gurgled, and showed only
slight fear. In fact, he even allowed the rat to crawl towards him and later
touched the rat’s ear. As such, there was no permanent psychological damage,
since the “fear” was only a weak reaction.
Watson
wanted to establish behaviorism in the midst of Freudian concepts as a science
and thus, attain respectability; however, he did not report results accurately,
“altered and deleted important aspects of the study in his many descriptions of
it,” stretched the truth, and gave frequent unobjective editorial comments (Harris,
1979). Rather, Watson provided a catchy story, nice photographs, and built up
his conclusions based on what could happen in a real study. To develop a
successful theory that is adopted, it must be “marketed;” one that is easy to
understand makes it more successful, (Britt, 2008) which is what Watson’s study
was. Watson knew his popularity could be gained if simple tools were used, with
familiar concepts, and done by well-known researchers. Watson had a persuasive
personality and knew how to get his story across to attain his hidden agenda.
Harris
(1979) concluded his research on the misrepresentations that have persisted on
the Little Albert study with this:
“What can be deduced from reviewing the
many versions of Watson and Rayner's study of Albert? One somewhat obvious
conclusion is that we should be extremely wary of secondhand (and more remote)
accounts of psychological research… secondary sources themselves come to err in
their description of classic studies… In reviewing these classic studies or origin
myths in psychology, it should be emphasized that this myth-making process
is not anyone's attempt to defraud the public. Instead, it arises ' as largely
a byproduct of pedagogy: as a means to elucidate the concepts of a
scientific specialty, to establish its tradition, and to attract
students’… the major difficulty with such reevaluations of classic studies is
that they obscure the actual factors that determine the course of scientific
research… It may be useful for modern learning theorists to see how the Albert
study prompted subsequent research, but it seems time, finally, to place the
Watson and Rayner data in the category of "interesting but uninterpretable
results."
References
DeAngelis, T. (2010). ‘Little Albert’ regains his identity. American
Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology, 41:1, 10.
Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/01/little-albert.aspx
Beck,
H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding little Albert: A journey
to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64(7), 605-614. Retrieved
September 7, 2013, from http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Beck_Hall_2009_Finding_Little_Albert.pdf
Britt,
M. (2008). Episode 47: The little Albert study: What you know is…mostly wrong
(podcast). Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2008/02/episode-47-the-little-albert-study-what-you-know-ismostly-wrong/#ixzz2eFmD2sVb
Cherry, K. (n.d.) The little
Albert experiment, a closer look at the famous Case of little Albert.
Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/little-albert-experiment.htm
Fridlund,
A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A
neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0026720
(abstract available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=2012-01974-001)
Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34(2),
151-160. Retrieved September 5, 1013, from http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000198/01/BHARRIS.HTM
Mills,
J.A. (1998). Control, A history of
behavioral psychology. New York
University Press, N.J. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/133434820/Book-Control-A-History-of-Behavioral-Psychology-John-a-Mills
Samuelson,
F. (1980). J.B. Watson’s little Albert, Cyril Burt’s twins, and the need for a
critical science. American Psychologist,
35(7). Doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.619
(abstract available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/35/7/619/)
Watson, J. B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
Prepared by Mary
R. Noble, PhD
September 7,
2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)