There are still typos - Renee - Jun 26th 2008
Just letting you know there are still typos. as in "a infant" it should read "an infant". Editor's Note: Fixed. Very helpful - Ilene Calderon RASi - Apr 7th 2008
This entire article is very helpful. I teach alcohol diversion courses and have the clients do a behavior modification exercise. This article allows me to explain to them in simple terms what is going on in their brain and how they have control over changing it. i found it easy to understand - - Apr 5th 2008
what i understand +punishment is to disiplin say a child for doing something that could in danger there life's there for they will think twice before doing it a second time -punishment is having to live with the consequence of what they have done in other words learning the hard way. anyway i got a lot out of this article as i suffer depresstion and have a lot of negative thoughts thanks heaps It's all in the words! - Tom - Mar 25th 2008
I am a psychologist, but you are even confusing me with your terminology (15 years out of grad school , so maybe terms have changed). If you replace the word "reward" with "reinforement", it all starts to make sense. The word reward is too ingrained in colloquial language to use to explain negative reinforcement. I know many professionals in the helping professions that cannot define negative reinforcement, let alone "negative reward", which sounds a bit oxymoronic. Hope this helps. @Editor - - Sep 13th 2007
@Editor: You say "A negative reward occurs when you take away something that the child wants." and again you're wrong!! You are mixing up negative reward and negative punishment. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Descriptive_types for a better understanding. Editor's Note: We are always open to correcting mistakes that appear in our pages, but in this case, we aren't sure that the mistake you've identifed is in our page anymore. In the most recent version of this difficult page, we don't say what you say we are saying. Instead, the relevant line reads, "Negative reinforcement occurs when you take away an aversive thing. A great example is built into our cars: the annoying buzzer or chime stops when you fasten your seat belt". Are you sure you're looking at the most up-to-date page? reference - lotus - Aug 22nd 2007
the essence of the article is pretty interesting, since every one in the world has got problems with someone's behaviours(parents with their kids, spouces with each other and teachers with their students) but i think in the article there was no reference to the origin of this theory which is called Behaviourism, established by pavlov and skinner; for those who want to get the original version of the theory. doesn't make sense - Isa - Jul 2nd 2007
Something in the article doesn't make any sense. You say: Both positive reward and negative punishment are experienced as rewarding. How is taking child for an icecream and turning of a TV they want to watch both rewarding? Both positive punishment and negative reward are experienced as punishing. It's impossible that both sending a child to his room and allowing him out of the room are punishments. Shouldn't it write that positive reward and negative reward are rewarding and positive punishment and negative punishment punishing? Editor's Note: There is a problem with the wording in this article, and our editors are working to fix it. However, the issue you raise is not the problem. Taking your child for icecream (assuming she likes icecream) is a positive reward. However, turning off the tv is not a negative punishment - your example is for a positive punishment. A negative punishment occurs when you remove something that is experienced as painful. So turning off the TV is only a negative reward if your child is watching something that she DOESN"T want to watch - at which time, she will feel relief which is why negative punishment is rewarding. Sending your child to her room (assuming she doesn't like her room) is a positive punishment. However, allowing her out of the room is not a negative reward. That would be a good example of a negative punishment, instead. A negative reward occurs when you take away something that the child wants. This is a tricky business. We'll try to make the document clearer shortly. Neg. & Pos. Theorem - Quezzi Segmins - Jun 22nd 2007
I have noticed that the neg., and positive reinforcement and punishment theory is quite challenging. Say for instance, one lives in a democratic household and you make pick an option to reward or punish said child, but your spouse may not approve of the method, and now your decision has to go into a run-off. This is the conflict that happens to appear everytime the method is applied, in which before was a variable the came to be a major factor. Not being of one mind. The spouse culture is another factor, for what the husband may approve of the spouse does not. Is this a case that authoritarian personality appears to be the factor, and the methods to establish that can be quite "brutal". So while the debate is ongoing in which reward and punishment is most appropriate the discipline forsaken to bring about the desired change in behavior. How would you go about settling such impasse when the method opens additional corridors such as beliefs and cultural differences? so defn's are mixed up? - cyrus - May 12th 2007
I'll have to go back my old psych. textbooks to refresh my memory, but if what you wrote in your reply is correct (and I'm not saying that it isn't) then there's an inconsistency somewhere. I thought that the definitions were correct, but the examples switched around, but it seems that the examples are correct and the definitions are switched? For example, in the article it says that: Both positive reward and negative punishment are experienced as rewarding Both positive punishment and negative reward are experienced as punishing. But in your reply it says that: Taking away a child's toy is aversive - it is a punishment - but it is a negative punishment (and not negative reward) because something desirable is being removed. Having splinters in your fingers is aversive and it is rewarding when those negatives are removed. So removal is a reward, but it is a negative reward because something aversive is being removed. This would mean that both positive and negative punishment are punishing (where in one we apply something unpleasant and in the other we remove something pleasant). And a reward is always rewarding (positive reward means giving something pleasant and negative reward means taking away something unpleasant)... ... correct? Editor's Note: We've corrected errors in the text (again). Thank you for your comments! actually it's the examples which are mixed-up - cyrus - May 10th 2007
The definition given for negative punishment and negative reward are correct, but the examples given at the end, are switched around. Giving a child their favourite toy is a 'positive reward'... taking it away would be a 'negative reward.' Getting splinters (from wood-working) is a positive punishment, having the splinters pulled out would be a negative punishment. It helps to emphasize that in this context "positive" essentially means, applied, given or administered. "Negative" means to remove, discontinue or take away. A "reward" is a good... something desirarble. A "punishment" is a bad... something unpleasant. We would enjoy being given something desirable (pos. rew.), or having something unpleasant removed from our environment (neg. pun.). We would not like getting something unpleasant (pos. pun.) or having something desirable taken away (neg. rew.). hope this helps :) - caninefriends.org Editor's Note: Your definition of "positive" as "applied" is very helpful but we stand by the examples in the text. Rewards are rewarding and punishments are aversive. By which is meant, rewards are something that animals will work to achieve, while punishments are something that animals will work to avoid. Taking away a child's toy is aversive - it is a punishment - but it is a negative punishment (and not negative reward) becuase something desirable is being removed. Having something unpleasant removed from the environment is something animals will work to achieve - it is rewarding. But it is a negative reward, because something is being removed that is aversive. Having splinters in your fingers is aversive and it is rewarding when those negatives are removed. So removal is a reward, but it is a negative reward becuase something aversive is being removed. This stuff is tricky, but if you keep clear in your mind the two important concepts - desire vs. aversion and adding vs. removing, it makes sense. the way this sounds doesn't make sense - V - Mar 30th 2007
I'm not english major either but the way this sounds doesn't make sense. "Instead, negative punishments are actually rewarding, and negative punishments are actually rewarding." (6th paragraph) so?? shouldn't it be changed and shouldn't someone just proofread it before posting. because the article does in fact has some good info so why not make also make it readable. Editor's Note: I can't argue with your logic. The wording was wrong and we have corrected it. Thank you for pointing it out. nice explaination - brian - Dec 9th 2006
i just noticed that as well. nice explanation sans the typo.
Editor's Note: We are Psychologists - not English Majors. We do the best we can (grin!) Contradiction - sorry I read it wrong but... - - Dec 7th 2006
Sorry - just wrote to you about a contradiction in the text but I read it wrong (I think). There is a mistake where the phrase is repeated - that's all. Are you sure that negative punishment is rewarding??? I'm no expert at all but I understand that a punishment is intended to change bad behaviour, so I would understand negative punishment as being a negative action such as denying food for example in order to punish, as opposed to giving a slap (which is positive action).
I found the article interesting but this bit confused me - as stated in the article!
Editor's Note In this case, the term negative means that something that was present is now being removed - not that the experience is negative itself (e.g., uncomfortable). Negative punishment is the offset of punishment. When something that is punishing is removed, there is relief, and so the experience is rewarding. Not really paradoxical, but nevertheless confusing. Reinforcement & Punishment - Dean - Nov 26th 2006
I think you mixed up negative punishment with negative reward. The definition you gave for negative reward is actually the definition of negative punishment and vice versa
Editor's Note: You were correct, and we have altered the text so as to fix it. | 
