For example, readers of my book on coercion ( Sidman, 2000) who do not finish the book are most likely to have put it down permanently after they reached my presentation of the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. In my experience, this has been true especially of readers and audiences who are being introduced to behavioral science. I certainly agree with their observation that the concept of negative reinforcement has caused confusion. I wondered, therefore, whether they were simply looking for another term that might encompass those data more precisely. They are as committed as anyone to a behavioral science based on data, and would never suggest that we throw data away simply because some of those data are difficult to classify. I am sure that Baron and Galizio (2005) and Michael (1975) are not recommending that we ignore the data from experiments on (or even from daily observations of) escape and avoidance behavior, the phenomena that give rise to the concept of negative reinforcement. It is not clear to me whether they are recommending simply a new terminological convention or whether they are suggesting something more fundamental-a change in basic principles, or at least a new way to conceptualize our data. In the present instance ( Baron & Galizio, 2005), however, I am puzzled-as I was when Jack Michael published his original paper suggesting that we abandon the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement ( Michael, 1975). Because of the many constructive contributions by Alan Baron and Mark Galizio, I have learned to pay close attention to whatever they have to say.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |