Does Negative Reinforcement Decrease Behavior Why Or Why

Does All Negative Reinforcement Decrease Behavior Why Or Why Not2

1. Does all negative reinforcement decrease behavior? Why or why not?

Negative reinforcement involves removing or avoiding an unpleasant stimulus to increase the likelihood of a behavior occurring again. Contrary to the common misconception that negative reinforcement decreases behavior, it actually functions to strengthen or increase the probability of a behavior. Therefore, not all negative reinforcement decreases behavior; instead, it can lead to an increase in specific behaviors by removing aversive stimuli. For example, if a student studies diligently to avoid getting detention, loss of detention serves as a negative reinforcer, increasing the likelihood of studying in the future (Chance, 2013). It is essential to distinguish negative reinforcement from punishment, which aims to decrease behavior. Punishment, through adding or removing stimuli, results in a decreased behavior, whereas negative reinforcement encourages behavior by removing negative stimuli.

2. After being told repeatedly by her mother not to ski without proper eyewear, Samantha sustains snow blindness and eye burn, ruining the remainder of her ski trip. What effect might this have on her choice to use eyewear in the future? Why might this natural consequence have more of an effect on her behavior than actions taken by her mother’s nagging?

This negative consequence—suffering snow blindness and eye burn—serves as a natural punishment, likely decreasing Samantha's tendency to ski without proper eyewear in the future. The immediate, tangible discomfort reinforces the idea that not wearing protective eyewear can lead to undesirable outcomes. Unlike nagging, which may be perceived as persistent but less directly related to the behavior, the natural consequence directly links her action with its unpleasant result. Consequently, the natural negative outcome is more likely to motivate her to wear eyewear because it creates a clear, concrete association between her behavior and adverse effects (Breland & Breland, 1961). Such natural consequences are often more effective in altering behavior because they occur naturally as a part of the environment, making the connection more salient.

3. When 8-year-old Barry cannot get his way with his mother, she begins to whine. Barry's mother finds that if she gives Barry a cup of cocoa and talks about what’s bothering him, the whining stops. However, Barry’s mother is puzzled because Barry's whining is getting more frequent. Why?

This situation illustrates the concept of positive reinforcement. Barry’s whining is being reinforced because his mother responds by giving him what he wants—cocoa and attention—which increases the likelihood of whining in the future. The increased frequency results from the behavior being reinforced rather than diminished; rather than decreasing, whining is strengthened through the mom’s responses. The reinforcing stimulus (cocoa and attention) acts as a positive reinforcer for whining behavior (Lussier & Hendricks, 2018). As a result, Barry's whining has become more frequent due to the reinforcement history, demonstrating how reinforcement processes can inadvertently maintain or escalate behavior.

4. A local psychologist recommended to Barry's mother (above scenario) that she ignore the whining. Barry’s mother tried this on two consecutive occasions and the whining got worse! Barry’s mother is about to sue the psychologist for malpractice, but in your wisdom you point out what process the psychologist had in mind and the phenomenon which has occurred. Explain.

The psychologist likely intended to apply extinction, a process where a behavior that is reinforced is no longer reinforced, leading to a decrease in that behavior over time. In ignoring Barry's whining, the goal was to remove the positive reinforcement—attention—that maintained or increased the whining. However, the worsening of Barry's whining initially is a common phenomenon called an extinction burst, where the behavior temporarily intensifies before it begins to decrease. During extinction, the organism often responds with increased intensity or frequency of the behavior as it "tests" whether the reinforcement has truly been removed (Chance, 2013). Over time, if reinforcement is consistently withheld, the whining should diminish, but the initial increase is expected and explains why the behavior temporarily worsened.

5. Twins Jacob and Jeremy are arguing about who gets to use their Nerf gun next. Their mother takes away the gun and says that she will return it when they have played nicely for 10 minutes. What two processes has she used in order to achieve the results she wanted? Why would it be better to use the two contingencies together rather than to use one alone?

The mother employed both negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. She used negative reinforcement by removing the Nerf gun, which is an aversive stimulus, contingent on playing nicely. She also used positive reinforcement by promising the return of the gun after 10 minutes of good behavior, reinforcing the desired cooperative behavior. Using both contingencies together creates a more effective behavior management strategy; negative reinforcement removes the undesired behavior (arguing) by withholding access to the gun, while positive reinforcement strengthens the desired behavior (playing nicely) through a tangible reward. Combining these processes maximizes the likelihood of compliance and prosocial behavior (Miltenberger, 2016).

6. Mathias, an 11th grader, sassed his mother. As a result, his mother told him he could not drive his car for a week. This is an example of ...?

This example illustrates positive punishment, where adding an aversive stimulus—loss of driving privileges—decreases the likelihood of Mathias's sassiness. The consequence (loss of driving privileges) is intended to reduce unwanted behavior (sassing) by presenting an unfavorable outcome (Chance, 2013). Effective use of punishment involves pairing it with consistent application to weaken undesired behaviors, but it must be carefully managed to avoid unintended side effects such as resentment or escalation of behavior.

7. Before rolling the dice in Monopoly, Charlie blew on them. He landed on Free Parking and collected a $1,000 bonus. What effect, if any, might this likely be to his behavior the next time he rolls the dice? If this occurrence has an effect, what process would be operating, and what would be likely to happen to the effect over time?

This event can serve as a positive reinforcement if Charlie perceives blowing on the dice and landing on Free Parking as a rewarding or lucky experience. The unexpected bonus can increase the likelihood that Charlie will blow on the dice again in future rolls, expecting a similar payoff—a form of classical or operant conditioning (Skinner, 1953). Over time, if Charlie repeatedly experiences this reinforcement, the behavior of blowing on the dice may strengthen. However, if the bonus is seen as a random coincidence, the effect may diminish over time as the reinforcement becomes less consistent, leading to extinction of the behavior.

8. Mr. Jones asked for a volunteer to go to the blackboard to work a math problem. After several seconds of silence, he finally said, "Well, then, I'll do it myself." The class was then more likely to respond with silence to requests for volunteers. What process was operating?

This illustrates the principle of respondent extinction and negative reinforcement. Initially, the class's silence could have been reinforced by Mr. Jones's response—perhaps by acknowledging or helping the volunteer. When Mr. Jones ceases to solicit volunteers and instead takes over himself, the class learns that silence will lead to no response or assistance, reinforcing the silence (Chance, 2013). The process operates through extinction; the previous reinforcement of volunteer responses diminishes, and the silence response becomes more persistent due to the cessation of reinforcement, resulting in increased silence over time.

9. Andrew is the class clown. The teacher knows that Andrew acts silly to get the attention of the other students. The teacher talks to the class one day when Andrew is absent and agrees that in the afternoon, if everyone does not laugh at John's silliness, they be allowed 15 minutes extra free time. As a result, Andrew's silly behavior has decreased. By what process has John's silliness decreased (be specific as to the type)?

This is an example of negative punishment. The teacher's condition—no laughing at John's silliness—removes positive social reinforcement (attention) that previously maintained the behavior. As the students do not respond with laughter, the attention that Andrew seeks is withheld, leading to a decrease in his silly behaviors. Specifically, the teacher's deliberate withholding of attention (a form of negative punishment) diminishes the likelihood of Andrew acting silly to gain attention in the future (Lussier & Hendricks, 2018).

10. Mrs. Jones, a 7th grade teacher, told another teacher in the lounge that she is "fed up with her class' misbehavior and disrespect." “From now on I'm going to start using some negative reinforcement. Students who misbehave in my class will have to copy a page from the dictionary." What, if anything, is wrong with Mrs. Jones' statement? What, if you answered that it is incorrect, does she really mean?

Mrs. Jones's statement reflects a misunderstanding of negative reinforcement. The described contingency—requiring students to copy from the dictionary if they misbehave—actually constitutes positive punishment because it adds an unwanted activity intended to decrease misbehavior. Negative reinforcement involves removing an aversive stimulus to increase behavior—but here, the consequence is an additional task, which is a form of punishment aimed at reducing misbehavior. Mrs. Jones likely intends to use negative reinforcement as a way to encourage compliance, but her actual plan aligns more with punishment (Chance, 2013). To correctly employ negative reinforcement, she should identify a negative stimulus that is removed contingent on good behavior, thereby increasing desirable behaviors.

Paper For Above instruction

Negative reinforcement is often misunderstood as a method that decreases behavior; however, it primarily functions to increase or strengthen a behavior by removing aversive stimuli. This distinction is critical in understanding behavioral modification strategies. Negative reinforcement involves situations where an unpleasant stimulus is removed following a behavior, thereby increasing the probability of that behavior recurring (Chance, 2013). For example, a student studying to avoid detention is experiencing negative reinforcement because the removal of detention is contingent on studying, which promotes the behavior. Conversely, punishment (positive or negative) is aimed at decreasing undesirable behavior by adding or removing stimuli that reduce the likelihood of that behavior (Lussier & Hendricks, 2018). Therefore, not all negative reinforcement decreases behavior; in fact, it often increases or maintains behaviors by removing stimuli perceived as undesirable.

Natural consequences play a significant role in shaping behavior through direct environmental feedback. In the case of Samantha, who suffers snow blindness after skiing without eye protection, this natural, immediate adverse consequence likely acts as a powerful motivator to wear protective eyewear in the future. Such natural consequences tend to have a more profound impact than extrinsic actions like nagging because they involve real, tangible outcomes directly linked to behavior. The discomfort and potential health risks serve as salient cues that reinforce the importance of protective gear. This aligns with principles in behavioral psychology where natural consequences tend to be more effective because they create a clear association between behavior and its outcome, facilitating learning without external reinforcement efforts (Breland & Breland, 1961).

Barry's scenario exemplifies how reinforcement can unintentionally increase a behavior. When Barry's mother responds to his whining by giving him a cup of cocoa and discussing his worries, she provides positive reinforcement. This encouragement of behavior results in more frequent whining because the behavior is being reinforced by the mother's response (Lussier & Hendricks, 2018). Over time, the behavior becomes more entrenched, illustrating how reinforcement, even when well-intentioned, can lead to unintended increases in undesired behaviors.

The psychologist's suggestion to ignore Barry’s whining was based on extinction, a process where reinforcement is withheld to decrease a behavior. The initial increase in whining, known as an extinction burst, occurs because the individual tests whether the behavior still produces reinforcement. This phenomenon is common and can cause temporary escalation before the behavior diminishes (Chance, 2013). In Barry's case, ignoring the whining was expected to eventually reduce its occurrence, but the initial worsening is part of the extinction process.

The mother’s method with Jacob and Jeremy involves both negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. She removes the Nerf gun (negative reinforcement) contingent upon good behavior and promises to return it after 10 minutes of playing nicely (positive reinforcement). Employing both contingencies capitalizes on reinforcement principles by removing undesirable behaviors and simultaneously encouraging desirable ones, which increases the likelihood of compliance and cooperation (Miltenberger, 2016).

Mathias's inability to drive after sassiness exemplifies positive punishment. The addition of a loss—being prohibited from driving—aims to decrease his sassy responses by presenting an aversive consequence. Effective punishment reduces the frequency of undesired behaviors, but it must be applied consistently and carefully to avoid negative side effects such as defiance or resentment (Chance, 2013).

Charlie’s blowing on the dice before landing on a bonus square could serve as a cue or conditioned stimulus associated with luck or positive reinforcement. If Charlie perceives blowing as increasing his chances of winning, this behavior may be reinforced through positive reinforcement, making it more likely to recur (Skinner, 1953). Over time, if the bonus is not reliably linked to the blowing behavior, the effect may diminish, leading to extinction of the behavior.

Mr. Jones’s decision to take over the class activity after silence illustrates extinction. The initial silence might have been reinforced by the classroom’s or teacher’s reaction, but when Mr. Jones ceases to solicit volunteers and takes initiative, the reinforcement for silence diminishes. As a result, the class becomes more silent over time because the behavior is no longer reinforced, demonstrating the extinction process.

Andrew’s decrease in silly behavior when the teacher instructs the class not to laugh aligns with negative punishment. The teacher withdraws attention—an important reinforcing stimulus—when Andrew acts silly. The lack of attention reduces the likelihood of Andrew seeking attention through silliness in the future (Lussier & Hendricks, 2018). This is an effective application of negative punishment, where removing a positive reinforcer decreases a behavior.

Mrs. Jones’s plan to make students copy from the dictionary if misbehaving reflects a misunderstanding of reinforcement principles. This contingency is more accurately described as positive punishment because it involves adding an undesirable activity to reduce misbehavior. Mrs. Jones likely intends to increase compliance, but her actual approach may have unintended negative effects, such as resentment or disengagement. To employ negative reinforcement correctly, she should identify a negative stimulus that, when removed contingent on good behavior, increases the desirable actions (Chance, 2013).

References

• Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(1), 43–52.
• Chance, P. (2013). Learning and Behavior (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Lussier, R. N., & Hendricks, J. R. (2018). Applied Behavior Analysis: An Introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Miltenberger, R. G. (2016). Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Free Press.