Jeg skal prøve å gi meg nå... før det er flere enn Mr Canis som begynner å se på oss som skrullinger :)

Jeg startet denne diskusjonen med å spørre om

E ikke er en konsekvens.

Jeg ser nå plutselig helt klart at E ikke er en

konsekvens.

Kanskje nettopp dette er den letteste måten å

holde E og -P fra hverandre på?`

-P er en konsekvens. E er ikke en konsekvens.

Helix: "That´s never made any sense to me either. If I take

something away, it needs to be there to start with.

Unless you´re talking about the extinction process. Prior to

Not always. From Catania: "Studies of negative punishment have

reinforced." We refer to this as timeouts

or omission training, but it´s still -P even tho the primary

reinforcer was never actually given to nor removed from the

What he loses is the

opportunity to earn reinforcers for a specified period of time.

I follow your logic, however I can´t reconcile that with some of

the comments I´ve seen about -R: -R can be the removal of the

threat of punishment is the consequence that increases a behavior.

Exactly, this is the ´avoidance´ part of -R, as opposed to the

escape conditioning. However, the use of the term "punishment"

would be better to say "the aversive stimulus" or "the negative

So, if removal of the threat of [aversive conditions] is OC,

then wouldn´t

the removal of the opportunity for reinforcement be a

consequence

that would affect behavior (and be OC)?

Yes, it would. It may be negative punishment or extinction

Furthermore, if it is removing something and the

behavior is decreasing, wouldn´t it be -P?