Negative reinforcement vs Punishment

[Bean Bandit]

So since we have so much spam here. And not enough in depth converstations, lets try this:

Negative reinforcement vs Punishment

What is the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment?

Which one do you think is best?

Do you have any real examples?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

There's no discernable difference. Just different perspectives on the same act. Any victim or bleeding heart labels the act "Punishment" while the people who are severely lacking in empathy label it "Negative Reinforcement."

[Daenerys]

Negative reinforcement, would be like a mod closing every post by a user who constantly breaks rules, reguardless of if the post were breaking any rules or not.

Although, punishment could also be conscrued as the same thing. Although by these forums rules, you're not allowed to just close someone's post to punish them.

[akiko_kalla]

Hmm...I have three ideas and hopefully they make enough sense to be deciphered.

Perhaps punishment is an undesireable reaction to a specific behavior whereas negative reinforcement is negative actions taken to help lead the person towards the desired behavior? The punishment would come after the behavior but negative reinforcement would come prior to the potential behavior? I can see how perspective would easily explain negative reinforcement as punishment for a current behavior that has not developed into the terrible one, but to me it is not connected to the smaller behavior so much as it is to the prevention of the really bad one.

Like a teacher giving a student 50 sentences for talking out, that's punishment. It's after the behavior. But getting in front of the class and glaring at them so they know not to talk, that's prior to any disruptive behavior and to me would be negative reinforcement. Not the best example, but the only one I can think of at the moment.

Also, punishment might not have a connection to a specific behavior, but negative reinforcement would always have that connection because it exists for the purpose of preventing a behavior. Punishment is reactive, thus it is not as predictable, but negative reinforcement in proactive and would always be predictable. Now whether either were understood but the person is another matter entirely...

Then again, punishment could be making someone do something they don't want to do or withholding something from them. While negative reinforcement is not the desired reaction, but enough to keep the person continuing the bad behavior. For example, a child keeps talking. You give him/her 50 sentences...no student wants to do that. However, aknowledging the child who is seeking attention, reinforces the negative behavior. Even if you just yell at the student, they are more likely to do it again because you gave them attention--perhaps not exactly what they wanted, but not undesireable enough to stop the behavior.

You could even take it so far as to say the sentences are the punishment and the aknowledgement of the behavior is the negative reinforcement. Then again, sometimes I think too much and start going in circles...which I fear is what may have happened in this post so I shall stop. ^_^

[Capernicus]

Hmm...perhaps punishment is an undesireable reaction to a specific behavior whereas negative reinforcement is negative actions taken to help lead the person towards the desired behavior? The punishment would come after the behavior but negative reinforcement would come prior to the potential behavior? I can see how perspective would easily explain negative reinforcement as punishment for a current behavior that has not developed into the terrible one, but to me it is not connected to the smaller behavior so much as it is to the prevention of the really bad one. (If that makes sense.)

Nope, sorry, didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. >.<

You could even take it so far as to say the sentences are the punishment and the aknowledgement of the behavior is the negative reinforcement. Then again, sometimes I think too much and start going in circles...which I fear is what may have happened in this post so I shall stop. ^_^

Circles....... *dies*

Okay, so this is the way I see it. Negative reinforcement is just a froffy name your mother gives a punish because she doesn't want to sound like the "bad guy". I personally think that it's a stupid thing to do as well. We keep giving nice, sterile names for things to make them "sound better". Example: Soldier get's weak, disoriented, and motor skills and other bodily functions are impaired. A long time ago he would have been treated for Shell Shock. Now he would be treated for Post-Tramautic Stress Disorder. XP

See what I mean? It's another word for the same thing, much like a euphemism. Same idea, right? The concept behind this paticular kind is all wrong though. Completely unneccessary for it to have two names. The English language is guilty of doing that a lot (fat=over weight=obese=chubby=plump=heavy set I can just keep going on if you want). So, this is how I see it.

punishment+sentimental feelings=negative reinforcement

There, I said it. Burn it into your brain. Take it home. Chew it. It's delicious.

[Mr. blue-reddragoon]

Punishment


It is nice to see you participate here. But I think you missed the point of this topic, as in the very first sentence. We are attemtping to have a real discussion. A one word reply does not positively contribute to this topic. Actually a one word reply is considered spam at this message board.

Bean

[akiko_kalla]

Nope, sorry, didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. >.<

Well, I'm just putting out ideas, but that particular one I will try to explain better. A child does something that is wrong and so recess is taken away. That's punishment. If x happens then y occurs in reaction to it.

A teacher or parent sets in place a list of consequences and continuously reminds the child that creatin behaviors will be followed up by consequences. That is negative reinforcement. If y is enforced/explained/whatever then x may not happen.

The negative reinforcement exists solely for the purpose of preventing an undesired behavior whereas punishment only occurs if that behavior is demonstrated. A child may be condition through negative reinforcement to behave, or not behave. Punishment can be used to condition as well, but only after the behavior has occurred.

Perhaps it is something that is more in the mindset of the "punisher." Like stated earlier perspective can easily flip the situation and the words interchanged. I'm not really seeking a solution to the question as I find both punishment and negative reinforcement nearly useless in teaching. I just find it interesting to ponder.

[Bean Bandit]

Actually I agree with you akiko. You summed it up very well in how i also was seeing it.

[Krsnik]

Punishment is the exact same thing is Negative reinforcement, if you're looking at pavlov and classical conditioning. It's really not that different, at all. The punishment ACTS like the negative reinforcer to the behavior. It doesn't really work unless it is inforced, then the negative reinforcer would work, seeing as how over time you'd see the behavior dissipate. =D

Edit: Ok, they're two completely different things. Punishment is better. Why? Because negative reinforcement only says that the behavior shouldn't be repeated because of the desired negative effect. Punishment, in a way, CAN be like negative Reinforcement. Punishment works more effectively. It tells the behavior has consequences, where the negative reinforcer doesn't.

[Eris]

A punishment is a service to the victim, negative enforcement is a tool of deterring the the offender from repeating the offence.

As for my general views on crime and punishment, see this thread.

[lorie]

i think both are similar but negative enforcement is worse-all punishments are not forced they are just...thrown upon a person -they dont have to endure the punishment they can avoid it by redeeming themselves or behaving
negative enforcement-hence the word force and negative which are some of the most hated words. if anyone is forced it is done against wat they say or where they cant make their own choices on a matter concerning them and related. thats bad enough. using negative force makes it even worse.
ok i dont think im making much sense but when i find out more about it i will try to make a useful point much better than wat i wrote just now

[Sagat]

There's a stark difference.

Negative reinforcement would be like on the rucksack march yesterday morning where some guy wasn't able to keep up to the pace of the platoon and someone turned and said "hey dogf---er hurry it up!" and the officer said "you just mind you're own damn business, he'll complete the march at his own pace"

That's negative reinforcement.

Punishment is when you screw up and your superiors catch you on it. Another example: Someone was charged with leaving their helmet in the field - insecure kit. Not very serious but it's enough. The person was punished with having two weeks of kit inspections daily to make sure they got their act together. They passed their punishment, and it was dropped after that. They did their time, after that it was not mentioned again and all was forgiven.

I think that's the difference, Punishment is owning up to your mistake and doing the punishment, and being given another chance after. Negative reinforcement is just belittling and serves no purpose at all other than demoralizing the other person and perhaps making them do worse.

[ShadowtheWarWolf]

I have no idea how they are different. Hmmm.....I guess Negative Reinforcement and Punishment are sort of the same. Except that punishment is when you do something bad and negative reinforcemment is just there to remind you what happens when you do something bad. Other then that, they are mostly the same
An example of punishment: When you do something bad then you get punished.
An example of negative reinforcement: Let's say your at school. The school gives you negative reinforcement to keep you from not doing bad things.
(this is just my opinion, not sure if its right, but i tried)

[Daenerys]

Either way they are one in the same. It's just a matter of opinion, but no matter how you argue, you're just proving they're the same thing.