Es aversivo tener una ciencia incompleta de la conducta
Resumen
From the earliest days of behavioral psychology (e.g., Thorndike, 1911),
aversive control — what we now call punishment and negative reinforcement
— was recognized as a partner to what we now call positive reinforcement.
Although much is controversial about aversive control (Dinsmoor, 2001; Johnston,
1991), one thing is not in doubt: Aversive control is a prominent component
of the natural world (e.g., Skinner, 1953) and therefore deserves serious
scientific scrutiny.
The first half of the 20th century saw the emergence of key ideas about
aversive control, including precursors to what remain the major families of
theories of punishment and of negative reinforcement (e.g., Dinsmoor, 1954;
Mowrer, 1949). As the 20th century reached its midpoint, researchers were
learning how to apply to aversive control the free-operant methods that Skinner
and colleagues (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957) pioneered for studying
positive reinforcement (Azrin & Holz, 1966). This set the occasion for a remarkable
period — a sort of Golden Age of aversive control research. Across
roughly 25 years, much of what now are seen as the fundamental principles
of aversive control were fleshed out. Within about 25 years, however, things
began to change: Key investigators left the aversive control laboratory, and
by the 1980s, basic behavioral research on aversive control had thinned to a
trickle. It remains rare today (e.g., Baron, 1998).
The reasons why aversive control research became unpopular in behavior
analysis probably are complex, and certainly are beyond the scope of the
present discussion, but the consequences of this seismic shift in scholarly focus
are easy enough to assess, and unpleasant to consider. Below we briefly
describe three ways to conceive of the status quo.
aversive control — what we now call punishment and negative reinforcement
— was recognized as a partner to what we now call positive reinforcement.
Although much is controversial about aversive control (Dinsmoor, 2001; Johnston,
1991), one thing is not in doubt: Aversive control is a prominent component
of the natural world (e.g., Skinner, 1953) and therefore deserves serious
scientific scrutiny.
The first half of the 20th century saw the emergence of key ideas about
aversive control, including precursors to what remain the major families of
theories of punishment and of negative reinforcement (e.g., Dinsmoor, 1954;
Mowrer, 1949). As the 20th century reached its midpoint, researchers were
learning how to apply to aversive control the free-operant methods that Skinner
and colleagues (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957) pioneered for studying
positive reinforcement (Azrin & Holz, 1966). This set the occasion for a remarkable
period — a sort of Golden Age of aversive control research. Across
roughly 25 years, much of what now are seen as the fundamental principles
of aversive control were fleshed out. Within about 25 years, however, things
began to change: Key investigators left the aversive control laboratory, and
by the 1980s, basic behavioral research on aversive control had thinned to a
trickle. It remains rare today (e.g., Baron, 1998).
The reasons why aversive control research became unpopular in behavior
analysis probably are complex, and certainly are beyond the scope of the
present discussion, but the consequences of this seismic shift in scholarly focus
are easy enough to assess, and unpleasant to consider. Below we briefly
describe three ways to conceive of the status quo.