Chapter 16 Skinner: Behavioral Analysis 471differs from positive reinforcement in that it requires the removal of an aversive
condition, whereas positive reinforcement involves the presentation of a beneficial
stimulus. The effect of negative reinforcement, however, is identical to that of
positive reinforcement—both strengthen behavior. Some people eat because they
like a particular food; others eat to diminish hunger pangs. For the first group of
people, food is a positive reinforcer; for the second group, removal of hunger is a
negative reinforcer. In both instances, the behavior of eating is strengthened
because the consequences are rewarding.
There is an almost unlimited number of aversive stimuli, the removal of
which may be negatively reinforcing. Anxiety, for example, is usually an aversive
stimulus, and any behavior that reduces it is reinforcing. These behaviors might
include exercising, repressing unpleasant memories, making excuses for inappro-
priate behavior, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and a multitude of other
behaviors designed intentionally or unintentionally to reduce the unpleasantness of
anxiety.
Punishment
Negative reinforcement should not be confused with punishment. Negative reinforc-
ers remove, reduce, or avoid aversive stimuli, whereas punishment is the presentation
of an aversive stimulus, such as an electric shock, or the removal of a positive one,
such as disconnecting an adolescent’s telephone. A negative reinforcer strengthens
a response; punishment does not. Although punishment does not strengthen a
response, neither does it inevitably weaken it. Skinner (1953) agreed with Thorndike
that the effects of punishment are less predictable than those of reward.
Effects of Punishment The control of human and animal behavior is better
served by positive and negative reinforcement than by punishment. The effects of
punishment are not opposite those of reinforcement. When the contingencies of
reinforcement are strictly controlled, behavior can be precisely shaped and accu-
rately predicted. With punishment, however, no such accuracy is possible. The
reason for this discrepancy is simple. Punishment ordinarily is imposed to prevent
people from acting in a particular way. When it is successful, people will stop
behaving in that manner, but they still must do something. What they do cannot
be accurately predicted because punishment does not tell them what they should
do; it merely suppresses the tendency to behave in the undesirable fashion. Con-
sequently, one effect of punishment is to suppress behavior. For example, if a boy
teases his younger sister, his parents can make him stop by spanking him, but
unfortunately this punishment will not improve his disposition toward his sister. It
merely suppresses teasing temporarily or while in the presence of his parents.
Another effect of punishment is the conditioning of a negative feeling by asso-
ciating a strong aversive stimulus with the behavior being punished. In the above
illustration, if the pain of the spanking is strong enough, it will instigate a response
(crying, withdrawal, attack) that is incompatible with the behavior of teasing a
younger sibling. In the future, when the boy thinks about mistreating his younger
sister, that thought may elicit a classical conditioned response, such as fear, anxiety,
guilt, or shame. This negative emotion then serves to prevent the undesirable behav-
ior from recurring. Lamentably, it offers no positive instruction to the child.