Psychology, 5/e   Wortman, Loftus & Weaver
	Online Learning Center

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Aren’t negative reinforcement and positive punishment really the same thing?

This is probably the most common misunderstanding in the entire field of learning. To understand the distinction, consider the second word in the phrase first. “Negative reinforcement” is, by definition, REINFORCEMENT! The reinforcement, however, involves the REMOVAL (that’s the “negative” part) of something aversive . Positive punishment is just that--PUNISHMENT, achieved by the ADDITION (that’s the “positive” part) of something aversive. Don’t get sidetracked by the “positive” and “negative” modifiers. Those only signify whether the reinforcement/punishment involves the addition (“positive”) or the removal (“negative”) of some stimulus.

2. Could you explain intermittent reinforcement and extinction in everyday behavior?

The two concepts are closely related. If behavior is not followed by reinforcement, the behavior gradually becomes less frequent. Eventually, if reinforcement is completely withheld, the behavior no longer appears. If you call a former significant other to ask for a date, but are told (politely but firmly!) “no,” you will probably call back another time. If you are always told no, though, you’ll eventually quit calling. Because your calls are not reinforced, the calling behavior is extinguished.

Intermittent reinforcement occurs when behavior is followed only part of the time; importantly, intermittent reinforcement tends to be most effective when reinforcements occur on a non-predictable (random) schedule. If your former significant other says “yes” even one time, you are likely to continue calling. One excellent example of this was suggested by one of the book’s reviewers. Why do women continue to stay in abusive relationships? Part of the answer certainly lies in the reinforcement schedule: many abusers can be quite charming and attractive at times, and often this side of them occurs unpredictably. After a long, perhaps-violent encounter, the abuser may ask for “one more chance,” showing their partner with gifts, praise, and attention. In essence, they are creating an intermittent schedule of reinforcement for their partner, which (counter-intuitively) tends to prolong the relationship.

(Please note that I am not in any way condoning or discounting the effects of abusive relationships. This puzzling aspect of such relationships, though, is rooted in a powerful but simple principle, and I am grateful to the reviewer--who was not identified to the authors--for providing such a striking example.)

3. Does violence on TV really teach kids to be violent in real life?

It certainly doesn’t help. However, it appears that those most damaging aspects of violence on TV (or in movies, video games, and many other outlets) arise from the apparent lack of consequences for those inflicting violence. On TV people get shot and presumably die, but viewers are almost never shown the aftermath of violence, nor are the perpetrators punished. Kids who watch street violence as “entertainment” often become desensitized to real violence.

In some cases, though, viewing violence might lead to GREATER sensitization. It is hard to imagine anyone walking out of “Saving Private Ryan” and wanting to play “Army” the way I and my childhood playmates did after watching “The Green Beret.” Viewing THIS sort of violence, with care taken to show its destructive power, most probably does not have the same sort of effects as watching violence implicitly glorified.

Copyright ©1999 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
For further information about this site contact mhhe_webmaster@mcgraw-hill.com.