Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!csd2!krantz
From: krantz@csd2.UUCP (Michaelntz)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: Positive Reinforcement
Message-ID: <3060001@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Dec-85 23:28:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.3060001
Posted: Sat Dec 28 23:28:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 20:11:25 EST
References: <625@cylixd.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 36


Dave Kirby writes:

> In article <283@h.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>> ...Positive reinforcement is *always* better
>>than punishment and it will produce other good qualities in your kids.


> Just an open question here to all who are familiar with developmental
> psychology. Once the positive reinforcement is taken away (certainly
> you aren't going to lavish praise on your child EVERY time he doesn't
> defacate on the carpet?), doesn't the behaviour diminish? It would seem
> to me that positive reinforcement would teach the child to do a
> certain thing EXPECTING to be praised for it. Once the praise disappears,
> the child would then have no reason to continue behaving that way.


Actually, reinforcement is most effective when it is `partial'. 
Partial reinforcement is an irregular pattern of reinforcing
the behavior sometimes; when the reward is sufficiently 
desirable, the subject will respond correctly with the greatest
frequency, since (s)he doesn't know which response will bring
the reward, but does know that eventually the reward will
arrive.

Constant reinforcement, as Dave suggested, is not the best way
to go; the behavior does become dependent on the reward.  With
partial the subject gets used to performing the behavior without
getting a reward, at first in the expectation of eventually 
getting it; then just as a matter of habit.

- Michael "I was a Psych major once" Krantz
  
- - - - -

"The text reveals the process of its own production."