Pos/Negative Punishment?

[DanaSarah]

Hey guys,

I was just wondering if receiving a speeding fine comes under negative or positive punishment

Thanks in advance!

[Mariamnourine]

Hey guys,

I was just wondering if receiving a speeding fine comes under negative or positive punishment

Thanks in advance!

Just before I explain, negative punishment is referred to as 'response cost' in the study design. Positive punishment remains unchanged.

Now a speeding fine is RESPONSE COST. [or negative punishment]. Because it involves taking away something valuable [in this case the money] from the individual so that they do not repeat an undesirable behavior [in this case, they will not speed again]

I get why you're confused with positive punishment, because you think the 'speeding fine' is the addition to the environment that will weaken the behavior of speeding.

But nope, although you are adding something undesirable [speeding fine] you are still taking away something valuable from the individual [money $$$]. Which will make sure the individual doesn't speed again because they don't want their money taken.


PLEASE ASK FOR MORE CLARIFICATION. and now I will pose a challenge to you:

Is taking Panadol while having a head ache and example of negative or positive reinforcement? Please explain it to me!

[DanaSarah]

Just before I explain, negative punishment is referred to as 'response cost' in the study design. Positive punishment remains unchanged.

Now a speeding fine is RESPONSE COST. [or negative punishment]. Because it involves taking away something valuable [in this case the money] from the individual so that they do not repeat an undesirable behavior [in this case, they will not speed again]

I get why you're confused with positive punishment, because you think the 'speeding fine' is the addition to the environment that will weaken the behavior of speeding.

But nope, although you are adding something undesirable [speeding fine] you are still taking away something valuable from the individual [money $$$]. Which will make sure the individual doesn't speed again because they don't want their money taken.


PLEASE ASK FOR MORE CLARIFICATION. and now I will pose a challenge to you:

Is taking Panadol while having a head ache and example of negative or positive reinforcement? Please explain it to me!

Ohhhhh okay i understand! You're an absolute gem
So for the Panadol you could say its negative reinforcement at allows an individual to avoid an unpleasant stimulus being the headache and thus reinforces their behaviour of taking panadol in the future. Is this correct?

[Bri MT]

Ohhhhh okay i understand! You're an absolute gem
So for the Panadol you could say its negative reinforcement at allows an individual to avoid an unpleasant stimulus being the headache and thus reinforces their behaviour of taking panadol in the future. Is this correct?

Yes (unless they just really like the experience of taking medicine)

[Mariamnourine]

Ohhhhh okay i understand! You're an absolute gem
So for the Panadol you could say its negative reinforcement at allows an individual to avoid an unpleasant stimulus being the headache and thus reinforces their behaviour of taking panadol in the future. Is this correct?

great that you found it helpful!!

And yes, that is absolutely correct, I honestly couldn't have been able to explain it better myself!!! Spot on!!
As miniturtle suggested if the medicine is something they like [as in a desirable stimulus], then yes it would be positive punishment, because it involves adding the stimulus that the individual likes, hence reinforcing the behavior of taking the punishment.

Obviously this is really unlikely that an individual will like the panadonal [unless the question explicitly states this]. because who the heck like swallowing a horse-sized tablet if you ask me??

Is there anything else I can help you with?

[halo]

Hi guys I'm still confused why a speeding fine can't be positive punishment? You are giving them something undesirable to reduce the likelihood of them speeding again. I get why it could also be response cost, but to me positive punishment sounds more reasonable? 

And also, can't you have these two aspects to any situation then? like take for example giving someone a detention. the obvious answer to me is positive punishment, but by the logic above you could argue it is response cost because you are taking away their free time from them?

I'm not sure if I'm being really stupid but I legit don't get this

[Mariamnourine]

Hi guys I'm still confused why a speeding fine can't be positive punishment? You are giving them something undesirable to reduce the likelihood of them speeding again. I get why it could also be response cost, but to me positive punishment sounds more reasonable? 

And also, can't you have these two aspects to any situation then? like take for example giving someone a detention. the obvious answer to me is positive punishment, but by the logic above you could argue it is response cost because you are taking away their free time from them?

I'm not sure if I'm being really stupid but I legit don't get this

Okay when someone does something bad, they usually have to pay for it.

When someone speeds, they are doing with something bad, I get how you are confused with positive punishment. Because you think that the speeding fine is the addition to the environment that will weaken the behavior. Makes sense, but let me explain it to you this way.

this is how you can differentiate between positive and negative punishment. [using the speeding example]

Individual speeds and they get fined. NOW something undesirable is being removed from them {$$$}. So they will not do it again because they don't want their money taken from them. [anything that involve negative punishment involves something pleasant being taken away from the individual]

IF the speeding example was positive punishment, then it will NOT involve the removal of something pleasant [money] from the individual. If the individual speeds and hypothetically, the police officer YELLS at them [addition of an undesirable stimulus] That is an example of positive punishment. because they ARE NOT taking anything away from the individual.

Basically, if you ADD something to the environment [speeding fine] and it requires the individual to GIVE you something, then it negative punishment

If you ADD something to the environment [speeding fine] and it DOES not require the individual to give you something {money] then it is POSITIVE punishment.

Do you understand that? I know it was a very horrible explanation, but let me know and I will happily explain it to you again.

Now look at the detention example?

DOES it involves you taking something valuable from the individual [their lunch time]- if so, then it is response cost.

if it does not involve you taking something valuable [lunchtime] then it is positive punishment. [if the scenario said that the teacher ells at the student in class, and this is the only thing he did, then it will certainly be POSITIVE PUNISHMENT because the teacher id ADDING something UNDESIRABLE [yell] in the environment so that the students bad behavior is weakened.] 


Please let me know if you STILL don't get it okay?  You're not weird and these concepts aren't logical [it took me such a long time to get the hang of these], they just take time to get your head around!

[halo]

Okay when someone does something bad, they usually have to pay for it.

When someone speeds, they are doing with something bad, I get how you are confused with positive punishment. Because you think that the speeding fine is the addition to the environment that will weaken the behavior. Makes sense, but let me explain it to you this way.

this is how you can differentiate between positive and negative punishment. [using the speeding example]

Individual speeds and they get fined. NOW something undesirable is being removed from them {$$$}. So they will not do it again because they don't want their money taken from them. [anything that involve negative punishment involves something pleasant being taken away from the individual]

IF the speeding example was positive punishment, then it will NOT involve the removal of something pleasant [money] from the individual. If the individual speeds and hypothetically, the police officer YELLS at them [addition of an undesirable stimulus] That is an example of positive punishment. because they ARE NOT taking anything away from the individual.

Basically, if you ADD something to the environment [speeding fine] and it requires the individual to GIVE you something, then it negative punishment

If you ADD something to the environment [speeding fine] and it DOES not require the individual to give you something {money] then it is POSITIVE punishment.

Do you understand that? I know it was a very horrible explanation, but let me know and I will happily explain it to you again.

Now look at the detention example?

DOES it involves you taking something valuable from the individual [their lunch time]- if so, then it is response cost.

if it does not involve you taking something valuable [lunchtime] then it is positive punishment. [if the scenario said that the teacher ells at the student in class, and this is the only thing he did, then it will certainly be POSITIVE PUNISHMENT because the teacher id ADDING something UNDESIRABLE [yell] in the environment so that the students bad behavior is weakened.] 


Please let me know if you STILL don't get it okay?  You're not weird and these concepts aren't logical [it took me such a long time to get the hang of these], they just take time to get your head around!

Thank you sooo much you made this so clear for me. I'm very grateful

[jrose006]

Remember, if this is a question in short-answer, you just can justify your reasoning as to why you think it is positive punishment/response cost- it also depends on how the question is worded- they'll make it pretty clear:
if they say he was given a fine, an undesirable stimulus has been added (a fine) (yes, I know that this means losing a desired stimulus (money).

If they say he has to pay a $100 fine, then this is the removal of a desired stimulus (money)- but you have to be GIVEN a fine in order to have to pay $100 (which is the addition of an undesired stimulus, if that makes sense)

It sounds confusing now, but if you just justify yourself, you'll get the mark!

[halo]

actually, I'm a bit confused again.

In the detention example, couldn't you justify the yelling as being a response cost because it might take away from the person's confidence? I'm just asking because we had a similar question in a SAC, and they wanted us to identify what the response cost was in a hot/cold game. I got the mark for saying that when you say cold you take away the person's confidence to decrease the likelihood of them walking in the direction they were walking.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you try hard enough you could justify both negative and positive reinforcement logically. It just becomes a problem when its a multiple choice question... and in that case I'm assuming it's better to go with the MORE logical explanation?

[halo]

http://study.com/academy/lesson/positive-punishment-definition-examples-quiz.html

Also, this website defines speeding as positive punishment, so that just further adds to my confusion 

[jrose006]

actually, I'm a bit confused again.

In the detention example, couldn't you justify the yelling as being a response cost because it might take away from the person's confidence? I'm just asking because we had a similar question in a SAC, and they wanted us to identify what the response cost was in a hot/cold game. I got the mark for saying that when you say cold you take away the person's confidence to decrease the likelihood of them walking in the direction they were walking.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you try hard enough you could justify both negative and positive reinforcement logically. It just becomes a problem when its a multiple choice question... and in that case I'm assuming it's better to go with the MORE logical explanation?

Don't think too deep into it- just look at the wording of the question:

If something has been added or given- look at it as POSITIVE (punishment or reinforcement)

If something is taken away look at it as NEGATIVE (punishment/response cost or reinforcement)

Don't think about the repercussions of the addition or removal of the stimulus e.g. confidence being removed from being yelled at- look at it as positive punishment because a yell is being added to reduce the likelihood of the undesired behaviour being repeated again in the future.

[Mariamnourine]

actually, I'm a bit confused again.

In the detention example, couldn't you justify the yelling as being a response cost because it might take away from the person's confidence? I'm just asking because we had a similar question in a SAC, and they wanted us to identify what the response cost was in a hot/cold game. I got the mark for saying that when you say cold you take away the person's confidence to decrease the likelihood of them walking in the direction they were walking.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you try hard enough you could justify both negative and positive reinforcement logically. It just becomes a problem when its a multiple choice question... and in that case I'm assuming it's better to go with the MORE logical explanation?

okay, I know my explanation was a bit clumsy before, but I figured out a REALLY simple way to explain this to you.

Think of it like this:

Negative punishment is a 2-way process. It involves the addition of an undesirable stimulus and the removal of a valuable stimulus.
Positive punishment is a 1-way process: it merely involves the ADDITION of an undesirable stimulus.

In the speeding example:

negative punishment: It involved the ADDITION of an undesirable stimulus [speeding fine] but it also involved the REMOVAL of a valuable stimulus [money]
If this example was an example of positive punishment it would go something like this: The driver speeds, and the police officer ADDS and undesrable stimulus [warning]. However it doesn't require the driver to give anything valuable [such as money] to the police officer.

Detention example:
If a student was using their phone in class and the teacher gave them a warning, this would be positive punishment because the teacher is ADDING an undesirable stimulus [warning] to the environment, however the techer hasn't taken the phone [valuable stimulus] away from the student.

if it were to be an example of NEGATIVE punishment, then the teacher would ADD the warning [undesirable stimulus] and then would REMOVE a valuable stimulus from the student [phone]

Do you get that a bit better now, I just think you are over-complicating things fro yourself, its straightforward you just need to stop thinking about all the little potential aspects of a scenario and look at the bigger picture-that's all!

In regards to the link you posted-don't trust that. It really doesn't make any sense, VCAA doen't make thing that complicated if it makes you feel better.

So in a nutshell:

Negative punishment [2-way process]: ADDING and undesirable stimulus and REMOVING a valuable stimulus
Positive punishment [1-way process]: ADDING an undesirable stimulus [and that is all]

Any more questions?

[Mariamnourine]

http://study.com/academy/lesson/positive-punishment-definition-examples-quiz.html

Also, this website defines speeding as positive punishment, so that just further adds to my confusion 

Don't ever ever ever use this again. Don't read it either. Just take it out of your mind forever.

These examples are soooo wrong. A speeding fine IS NOT positive punishment. NO way!!! Even if they were right, it is not what we need to know in accordance to the study design produced by VCAA. PLEEEEEEAAASE don't use this again, no wonder why you are confused.

[halo]

omg this makes so much sense, thank you so much!!