Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 15. Skinner: Behavioral
Analysis© The McGraw−Hill^459
Companies, 2009Negative Reinforcement The removal of an aversive stimulus from a situation also
increases the probability that the preceding behavior will occur. This removal results
in negative reinforcement(Skinner, 1953). The reduction or avoidance of loud
noises, shocks, and hunger pangs would be negatively reinforcing because they
strengthen the behavior immediately preceding them. Negative reinforcement differs
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 rein-
forcement—both strengthen behavior. Some people eat because they like a particu-
lar 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 rein-
forcer. In both instances, the behavior of eating is strengthened because the conse-
quences 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 exer-
cising, repressing unpleasant memories, making excuses for inappropriate behavior,
smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and a multitude of other behaviors designed in-
tentionally or unintentionally to reduce the unpleasantness of anxiety.
Punishment
Negative reinforcement should not be confused with punishment. Negative rein-
forcers remove, reduce, or avoid aversive stimuli, whereas punishmentis the pre-
sentation of an aversive stimulus, such as an electric shock, or the removal of a pos-
itive 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 punish-
ment are not opposite those of reinforcement. When the contingencies of reinforce-
ment are strictly controlled, behavior can be precisely shaped and accurately pre-
dicted. With punishment, however, no such accuracy is possible. The reason for this
discrepancy is simple. Punishment ordinarily is imposed to prevent people from act-
ing in a particular way. When it is successful, people will stop behaving in that man-
ner, 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. Consequently, one effect of punish-
ment is to suppress behavior.For example, if a boy teases his younger sister, his par-
ents 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 feelingby as-
sociating 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
Chapter 15 Skinner: Behavioral Analysis 453