Abstract

CARVALHO NETO, Marcus Bentes de  and  MAYER, Paulo César Morales. Skinner and the asymmetry between reinforcement and punishment. Acta comport. [online]. 2011, vol.19, n.4, pp. 21-32. ISSN 0188-8145.

The cornerstone of the operant theory is the evidence that the responding is affected by its consequences. The consequences which increase the probability of responding are termed reinforcing, little divergences are found in what concerns to it. However, when the issue is about decrease in responding, different perspectives are confronted. When discussing the punishment's underlying mechanisms, Skinner turns to an alternative account, not strictly selectionistic, explaining the suppression of responding through the elicitation of incompatible emotional responses and the negative strengthening of responses that eliminate or reduce the aversive stimulation (be it unconditional or conditional). Additionally, Skinner presents a set of critiques to the use of punishment emphasizing its negative effects. Supposedly, reinforcement wouldn't have the same problems and, due to it, would be a better alternative for the control of behavior. Reinforcement and punishment, in this sense, would be asymmetric behavior phenomena. In another theoretical perspective it's stated that while some consequences strengthen the responding, others weaken it, contending a symmetrical relation between both phenomena. Extensive debates and studies concerning this issue have taken place, none has ever definitely refuted the other though. The aim of the present essay was to evaluate if Skinner's characterization of punishment would or not apply to reinforcement, discussing from this perspective the symmetry or asymmetry between the two phenomena. The eight main Skinnerian objections to punishment have been identified and critically examined. It was observed that the eight arguments proposed by Skinner as peculiar to punishment can also be extended to reinforcement, once in both relations: 1) continued exposure to the same events (aversive or reinforcing) produces habituation; 2) the effects over responding are transitory when the contingency is discontinued ; 3) there is elicitation of respondents which can interfere with the occurrence of the response; 4) conflicting relations may emerge when the same stimulus signalize two or more possible consequences (reinforcing or aversive); 5) other responses, not directly subjected to the consequences, are affected (induction); 6) stimuli, present during the history of selection, can acquire conditional functions (aversive or reinforcing); 7) the removal of the consequent stimulus (reinforcer or punisher) produces an automatic relation of control differing only in the direction of the effect (strengthening or suppressing); and 8) there might be an increase in the probability of aggressive responses. Thus, for all the operations and effects presented by Skinner as typical of the punishment (its intrinsic problems) there is also a counterpart in the reinforcement. So, making use of Skinner's own categorization, it was concluded that these behavior phenomena are symmetrical.

Keywords : Punishment; positive reinforcement; consequences; symmetry; asymmetry; behavior explanation.

        · abstract in Portuguese     · text in Portuguese     · Portuguese ( pdf )