NO! This is one of the hardest ideas to master in the course in part because the jargon gets in the way. Even Skinner apologized for producing terms that were hard to learn. Punishment occurs when an aversive (negative) outcome follows a behavior. In most cases, the behavior is unlikely to occur again. Negative reinforcement also involves something negative which is where the confusion comes in. But in negative reinforcement, a behavior is strengthened by avoiding some unpleasant outcome. It helps to remember reinforcement predicts a behavior will get stronger. Positive reinforcement predicts a behavior will get stronger if it is followed by a positive outcome. Negative reinforcement predicts a behavior will get stronger to avoid something unpleasant. You probably put on your seat belt in part to avoid the annoying buzzer the car makers have installed in your car as a reminder. If you put on your seatbelt before the buzzer starts, the act of putting on a seat belt is negatively reinforced. If you forget, your failure to put on a seat belt will be punished with the aversive noise. This will make you more likely to remember next time before the buzzer starts, moving you back to negative reinforcement of putting on your seat belt.

Imagine you are thirsty. You put change in a vending machine and it fails to deliver. How long will you keep plugging change in the machine? Not long. Your behavior will extinguish. Have you ever been ignored by someone? How long are you likely to keep trying to be a friend to someone who fails to respond to your efforts? What if you want to get a phone call from a new dating prospect? How long will you sit by the phone until your waiting behavior extinguishes and you go in search of new friends?

Both types of conditioning demonstrate how we acquire new behavior but they emphasize different phases of learning. In operant conditioning, we acquire behaviors based on the consequences that follow them. We get praised or punished or ignored and this will make a difference in whether we repeat the behavior in the future. In operant conditioning the emphasis is on consequences.

In classical conditioning, we acquire new behaviors when stimuli in our environment take on new meaning. When you are just learning to drive, you learn that flashing red lights signal, “Uh oh. Pull over.” You learn to associate a particular song with the warm feelings you have about a special person. In classical conditioning the emphasis is on association.

Some learning specialists say you can see both types of learning in complex behavior. Think about your cat responding to the noise of the lid being snapped off a can of food. The cat runs up to you (approach behavior) and it gets food (positive consequence) so the cat’s approach to you is positive reinforced (representing operant conditioning). On the other hand, the once neutral sound of a can being opened (neutral stimulus) takes on new informational value (classical conditioning). After being paired with the cat food (unconditioned stimulus), the sound of the lid being snapped off (conditioned stimulus) activates your cat’s friendly approach.

This is a great example of a simple question that can’t be answered easily. Television is just one of many factors that shape children’s behavior. Parents, teachers, and peers are also instrumental. But underlying the question is whether television is directly responsible for the growing problem we have with violence. Most experts suggest that our increasing tolerance of violence may be linked to escalating examples in the media. Children may become desensitized to violence until new and more horrible examples are used. The desensitization may also discourage children from developing proper empathy. But television can also provide positive models as well. The long-standing popularity of Sesame Street and other educational programs suggests that we shouldn’t just condemn television but appreciate range for good and bad influence.