Positive Reinforcement Vs Negative Reinforcement

[TheClutch]

Just thinking about this..while im in my psychology class...

Negative Reinforcement- Instilling fear into the members and forcing them to do well in fear of failing. (Corps that do long vigorous basics blocks, yell?, stand at attention and don't "break", intense/yelling workouts in the sun for prolonged periods of time..) The Marines use this in basic training as the instructors yell at recruits and get in their face, etc. It is also this way knowing that punishment could come out of not doing well.

Positive reinforcement- Doing things knowing that it will be rewarded, Not in fear of failing or punishment, but in hopes of reward.

I think that a lot of younger corps use a lot of negative reinforcement to try to instill some maturity and discipline into the teens, while older corps (blue devils or cavs in particular) can usually skip this part because their members have probably already gone through this.. (If you notice how relaxed they are when they go about doing things).

Thoughts?

[CitBos]

It makes sense in what your saying. I've noticed that myself in some corps.

[MikeN]

I'm guessing that negative reinforcement, though, is kind of the "quick and dirty" way of achieving results - quickly breaking through learned habits so you can start teaching new ones. However, after a while it seems like it would lose its effectiveness. Heck even in boot camp they lay off after a while and start building you up again.

Mike (dusting off vague memories of his own)

[fourouttheforty]

Compare how many push ups staff tells you to do in an average week of the season against number of push ups staff tells you to do in either the last or second-to-last week of tour.

[Rifuarian]

Just thinking about this..while im in my psychology class...

Negative Reinforcement- Instilling fear into the members and forcing them to do well in fear of failing. (Corps that do long vigorous basics blocks, yell?, stand at attention and don't "break", intense/yelling workouts in the sun for prolonged periods of time..) The Marines use this in basic training as the instructors yell at recruits and get in their face, etc. It is also this way knowing that punishment could come out of not doing well.

Positive reinforcement- Doing things knowing that it will be rewarded, Not in fear of failing or punishment, but in hopes of reward.

I think that a lot of younger corps use a lot of negative reinforcement to try to instill some maturity and discipline into the teens, while older corps (blue devils or cavs in particular) can usually skip this part because their members have probably already gone through this.. (If you notice how relaxed they are when they go about doing things).

Thoughts?

9/10 negative reinforcement - unless it is self-enforced - is less productive than positive. That doesn't mean we should be all namby-pamby and handle members with kid gloves. Positive reinforcement, to me, simply means expecting maturity and responsibility, acknowledging a job well-done, and expressing disappointment when it is not. The fear of disappointing your fellows and your leaders can be far more powerful than the fear of physical punishment.

The comparison with the military, even though I've heard it made many a time by corps staff, is fallacious. Yes, in basic training it's quite common, but it serves a specific purpose: If you can't handle being yelled at, then you certainly can't handle the rigors of combat. That's simplified a bit, but I think it's enough for this discussion. Drum corps aren't testing their members to see if they can handle combat, they're trying to create a finely tuned performance, and positive reinforcement is most helpful in that regards. Same with the military. If I, as an officer in the navy, had charged around screaming, throwing fits, and (God help me) trying to mete out physical punishment to the enlisted men in my charge, I wouldn't have gotten anything done. Actually, I'd be writing this post from somewhere on the bottom of the Indian Ocean if I had done all that.

I've also seen positive reinforcement work well with young teens. One of the best bands I've ever had the privilege of being involved with is Adair County High School from Kentucky. This is a band from a poor rural area that can hang with the top bands in the nation. It also, in the early 2000s at least, was made up of at least 40% 7-9th graders. Yet the director rather than being a hard### (except on a few occasions) took an extraordinarily relaxed approach to things. And they got a lot done. Simply by expecting maturity and responsibility he usually got it, even from 12 year olds. Things may be different now, especially since they have a new director, but that band is one of the most powerful examples of the effects of positive reinforcement I've seen.

[dapperpoet]

Uh...just for the record, irrespective of the point you're making, you're using the terms incorrectly. And yes, I am a psychologist. When I teach pre-service teachers, I have them repeat after me: "REINFORCEMENT INCREASES BEHAVIOR, PUNISHMENT DECREASES BEHAVIOR" because they often get them mistaken. What you're talking about is reinforcement vs. punishment. What is negative reinforcement? It's the taking away of an undesired stimulus. To wit: "If you all get 90% on your quizzes we won't have homework tonight." This is reinforcement because it increases behavior, it is negative reinforcement because it takes away an undesired consequence.

Hey, sometimes all that schooling turns out to be useful.

Edited March 3, 2010 by dapperpoet

[Imperial]

I've been exposed to both methods. Back when I marched my first taste was negative. Then as the 70's gave way to the 80's the instruction became more positive and guru like. I preferred the later and it did seem to yield better and more accurate results in our performances. It seemed the positve instructors were more knowledgable and more secure in their approach. The less secure, less knowledgable ones would resort to yelling more.

Now when I teach I use the positive but I don't accept less than the potential. I remain kind, but at the same time, I insist on the student not settlling for less. When things aren't going right, I don't blame the performer first. I look in the mirror first to see if it isn't my fault. This has served me well.

Some people might think it's one or the other. But I think both methods can be blended.

Another observation: Back in 93, I had an opportunity to work with a H.S. Band with Tom Aungst. I noticed his style wasn't positive or negative, it was just pure instruction. His approach was, this is the right way and this is the wrong way.... do it THIS way. He didn't get upset. He just kept reinforcing what was the right way. And of course, he knew what was the right way. He was an expert at his kraft. It was a no tension environment. Just.... do it THIS way. It took some time but over the years that HS -which was already good when he got there- became a monster program.

[Galen]

When I marched, the difference was this:

Positive reinforcement meant pushups

Negative reinforcement meant running

I'm sure I'm not the only one who experienced this

[84BDsop]

Compare how many push ups staff tells you to do in an average week of the season against number of push ups staff tells you to do in either the last or second-to-last week of tour.

Or...compare how many push-ups the staff hands out vs the number of push-ups the members hand out to themselves.

At BD I RARELY recall being told to do push-ups or get "that leaf" from a tree in the distance (no...the OTHER leaf!). The VETS made it clear to the rookies what was expected of them...because they did the same themselves. Many times we'd run a set, halt, dress the set, relaxed, and while the staff was talking things over, we who recognized we'd ticked would drop and do 10 or 20 (depending on how bad they felt they ticked)...by the time the staff was ready to go, the 'shups were done....we rarely, if ever, lost time.

We, the members, made sure that WE owned the show, by taking the time to basically say to our fellows "that was my tick." People say you can't self-discipline....I saw it every rehearsal for 9 months.

I know to this day I respond FAR better to positive reinforcement than to someone #####ing me out for taking too deep a breath after a fast marching phrase. I DO want to know when I've done something wrong so I can correct it...but don't rip me a new one for a simple mistake, especially during the learning process.

I teach fencing the same way...middle/high schoolers and adults...and I see the same sort of learning curve...trending upwards.

[TheClutch]

Or...compare how many push-ups the staff hands out vs the number of push-ups the members hand out to themselves.

At BD I RARELY recall being told to do push-ups or get "that leaf" from a tree in the distance (no...the OTHER leaf!). The VETS made it clear to the rookies what was expected of them...because they did the same themselves. Many times we'd run a set, halt, dress the set, relaxed, and while the staff was talking things over, we who recognized we'd ticked would drop and do 10 or 20 (depending on how bad they felt they ticked)...by the time the staff was ready to go, the 'shups were done....we rarely, if ever, lost time.

We, the members, made sure that WE owned the show, by taking the time to basically say to our fellows "that was my tick." People say you can't self-discipline....I saw it every rehearsal for 9 months.

I know to this day I respond FAR better to positive reinforcement than to someone #####ing me out for taking too deep a breath after a fast marching phrase. I DO want to know when I've done something wrong so I can correct it...but don't rip me a new one for a simple mistake, especially during the learning process.

I teach fencing the same way...middle/high schoolers and adults...and I see the same sort of learning curve...trending upwards.

and what was the average age there? and the average number of years marched (including other corps) by the members?

Would this have worked with a bunch of 16-18 year olds?