Better yet, threaten to punish them. It's been shown that negative reinforcement is more effective than positive
What you're describing is positive punishment.
Also nicely explained in TBBT: https://youtu.be/gLp_aLMm5qQ
optimal terminology has never been our strong point as a scientific community.
"positive" refers to adding stimulus, "negative" refers to removing stimulus.
"Reinforcement" is anything that increases the occurrence of the behavior, "punishment" is anything that decreases the occurrence of the behavior.
The argument isnt to reverse the meanings of existing labels containing the word punishment. The argument is that the four categories should be, e.g.: 1. "Positive": Reinforcement of behaviour from positive stimulus 2. "Antipositive" (or similar term): Reinforcement from reversal of positive stimulus 3. "Negative": Reinforcement of behaviour from a negative stimulus 4. "Antinegative": Reinforcement from reversal of a negative stimulus.
Reinforcing means increasing the likelihood (by adding something liked or by removing something disliked) while punishment refers to reducing the likelihood (by adding something disliked or removing something liked).
If you look at it from a logical point of view both reinforcing stimuli are positive (in the sense of good for the subject, i.e. directly good or not bad) while punishing stimuli are both negative for the subject (in the sense of bad for the subject, i.e. directly bad or not good).
The language problem and common mistake comes from the usage of positive and negative with a different meaning from the usual meaning in the context of behavior. Thinking of it like additive and subtractive is more helpful. But making the meaning of reinforcement less specific isn't really helpful.
To me "reinforcement" alludes to a reinforcement of behaviour, not likelihood of action vs inaction. So it's a case for increasing the specificity of the word, not decreasing it.
If every time you try to open the door you get an electric shock, this is a "negative/punishing" stimulus that reinforces a particular behaviour of avoiding doors. Similarly if you used to get a treat every time you opened the door which then reinforced a door-opening behaviour, and then you suddenly stop giving treats, then this is the removal of a "positive/rewarding" stimulus, which 'weakens' the particular, previously reinforced behaviour of opening doors.
At the very least we should be talking about 'reinforcement vs weakening', 'positive/rewarding stimuli vs negative/punishing stimuli', and 'application vs removal of stimulus'.
So, linguistically speaking, using the term "negative reinforcement" to mean "weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" rather than "reinforcement via application of a negative stimulus" is simply misleading, and bad choice of terminology.
> So, linguistically speaking, using the term "negative reinforcement" to mean "weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" rather than "reinforcement via application of a negative stimulus" is simply misleading, and bad choice of terminology.
Using your terminology "Negative reinforcement" actually means "reinforcement by removal of a negative stimulus". "Weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" is the description of negative punishment. The crux of the problem is that positive and negative are not a descriptive property of the stimulus in this context, but just synonyms for additive/subtractive and I agree that this is misleading.
2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it.
3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs?
>1. Sweets and food should not be used as reward and punishnent in the first place. So that not eating them is not emotionally punishment, but just healthy thing to do.
Kids like treats, have you met one?
>2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it.
Preschoolers can understand conditional rewards and penalties and play simple games. We arent talking about toddlers here.
>3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs?
Not sure what you on about here. What situation and what compliance are your referring to? We are taking about the design of a human behavior study, not how people should raise their kids.
My comment was about what you attitude you teach them about sweets. Nothing in it implied they dont like it. They still should not be used as reward.
Not having sweets is not punishment. It is just healthy behavior. You dont eat sweets as reward for being good either. Being good dont imply ability to eat more sweets.
> Preschoolers can understand conditional rewards and penalties and play simple games
Preschoolers have meltdowns over those super regularly. They actually completely sux at games with rules over rewards and punishments, because they sux at hangling the disappointment.
Have you worked with preschoolers, ever?
> Not sure what you on about here. What situation and what compliance are your referring to? We are taking about the design of a human behavior study, not how people should raise their kids.
The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase.
Sure, but it’s hardly the time and place to grandstand about healthy eating, is it? The point is to find an ethical and less confrontational alternative to something like hitting the child with a ruler. You’re welcome to suggest a better idea.
> You dont eat sweets as reward for being good either.
Sure, in an adult study it would probably make more sense to have a monetary reward, but with children it’s better to use something less abstract.
> The kids did as scientists asked them. That is compliance - there was no issue of kids ignoring doll or going to play chase.
The idea is to figure out whether the poor performance was because they weren’t motivated to make an effort or because they were just dumb. It’s only natural for humans to put in only the minimum effort on a pointless task with no reward or risk of punishment. I certainly can’t think instance in my child- or adulthood where I made effort for no reason.
This will be my last response because you clearly don't understand the OP study or the discussion in this thread. The study looked at a problem solving task with conflicting instructions, and measured the ability of children to complete the task correctly.
acituan and ALittleLight raised valid points that rewards and punishment could change the study results. For example, maybe children would be complete the task better better if they were punished or rewarded if they complete the study wrong for right. My point is that while it would be unethical to beat or harm a child for completing the task wrong, there are ethical ways to include some other forms of punishment.
It seems like you have some pet social and behavioral issues, but I find your poor grammar and communication skills trying, and have no interest in discussing them further.
That’s a nice thought, but millions of years of co-evolution with plants using animals for seed dispersal trumps a few thousand years of post-agricultural revolution excesses. Maybe in another million years we’ll lose our genes favouring sweet foods, who knows, but until then candy is a safe bet.
> 2. Cue meltdown in many kids with that tactic - you bring up ecpectation and then crash it.
Unlikely given that the experimenter will be a total stranger. There will be no established incentive structure to use tantrums for psychological manipulation as with the child’s parents.
> 3. Have you people even interacted with kid? What it is with adults who seek to design punishment into situation where there is already compliance or which is about unimportant bs?
That can be said about any area of study. Even a study of a supposedly solved problem or “unimportant bs” can lead to great insight.