tapped/annoyed the front of his nose with it, which had the result of interrupting his forward progress...and cascaded into the new behaviour of walking with slack in the leash.
*cough*......negative reinforcement.......*cough*
Actually, wouldn't that be positive punishment? In order to decrease the behavior (pulling) a stimulus is presented.
Positive = Stimulus presented
Negative = Stimulus removed
(positive and negative doesn't necessarily pertain to 'good' or 'bad', but rather if a stimulus is presented or removed from the environment)
Reinforcement = Increase likelihood of behavior
Punishment = Decrease likelihood of behavior
Shock collars, in most uses, are actually an example of positive punishment. In order to decrease the likelihood of a behavior, a stimulus (shock) is presented)
Actually, I suppose positive punishment and negative reinforcement can be said to be combined in these cases. After applying the positive punishment (shock)...the dog then changes it's behavior to something preferred...and in order to increase the likelihood of that behavior (reinforcement) the shock is removed (negative). But I think at it's core it is positive punishment.
Likewise, with the stick touching the nose...after the positive punishment is applied and the behavior corrected, you want to increase the likelihood of the corrected behavior by removing the stimulus (negative reinforcement). So yes, I suppose your summation was in part correct.
Another example of negative reinforcement would be if you are, say, training a dog to sit by pulling it's leash upwards. You pull the leash upwards until the desired behavior of the dog sitting (reinforcement), and then stop pulling upwards on the leash (negative)...(not that I dissapprove, or approve of said training methods...it was just examples I thought of)
I think I have all this right...but might have screwed up somewhere...it's been a few years since I studied psychology of behavior