USMLE Forums banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Guys i just saw a video on punishment, extinction, negative and positive reinforcement.. i understood it all but when i read examples from kaplan, i am not following it.
For example - the parents ignore the child when he throws temper tantrums.

from what i understood from video , i would say child throws tantrums( stimulus is added) then parents ignore him(behaviour stops) .. so according to me this should be punishment.. But kaplan added this example under extinction.. can someone please explain? Happy-2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
No punishment would be if the parents make him t kneel down or something like that..But rather they just ignore it and hence there is more tantrums, hence it is extinction...

Remember extinction occurs when a positive or negative reinforcement is removed over a long period of time.

In pavlov's experiement, we know that the dog salivates everytime the bell rings, now if we go on ringing the bell and the dog salivates but we dont give the food, then the dog realizes that bell sound has nothing to do with food and hence it stops salivating..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Guys i just saw a video on punishment, extinction, negative and positive reinforcement.. i understood it all but when i read examples from kaplan, i am not following it.
For example - the parents ignore the child when he throws temper tantrums.

from what i understood from video , i would say child throws tantrums( stimulus is added) then parents ignore him(behaviour stops) .. so according to me this should be punishment.. But kaplan added this example under extinction.. can someone please explain? Happy-2
Positive reinforcement - you give some positive reinforcer to the child, to get something done.

Negative reinforcement - you take away something, from the kid to. Get something done.

Child throws a tantrum... Seeking something... Parents can give him a chocolate. Hence, child will eventually learn, that when he cries he will get a chocolate. Child cries more. Parents are positively reinforcing the child by doing this(child gets chocolate), and as a side note, child is negatively reinforcing the parents behaviour (they get motivated to give him a chocolate to make him stop crying!! So he stops crying <the thing that's taken away>) by this act.

Parents decide not to give candy : Now, child knows that crying = candy. But wait... No positive reinforcer!! They don't give him the chocolate. Eventually child will learn/figure out that crying won't fetch him chocolate all the Time. Behaviour pattern chances = extinction

Don't confuse this with negative reinforcement. Because you have to take away something that was already there. In this case, this kid doesn't have a chocolate in the first place, when he starts crying.

Punishment is offering a noxious stimulus to stop the behaviour. Here they're just messing with the reinforcing agent.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top