Evaluating the separate and combined effects of positive and negative reinforcement on task compliance

Positive and negative reinforcement are effective for treating escape-maintained destructive behavior. The current study evaluated the separate and combined effects of these contingencies to increase task compliance. Results showed that a combination of positive and negative reinforcement was most effective for increasing compliance.     

Comparing the effects of positive and negative feedback in information-integration category learning

Categorical learning is dependent on feedback. Here, we compare how positive and negative feedback affect information-integration (II) category learning. Ashby and O’Brien (2007) demonstrated that both positive and negative feedback are required to solve II category problems when feedback was not guaranteed on each trial, and reported no differences between positive-only and negative-only feedback in terms of their effectiveness. We followed up on these findings and conducted 3 experiments in which participants completed 2,400 II categorization trials across three days under 1 of 3 conditions: positive feedback only (PFB), negative feedback only (NFB), or both types of feedback (CP; control partial). An adaptive algorithm controlled the amount of feedback given to each group so that feedback was nearly equated. Using different feedback control procedures, Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that participants in the NFB and CP group were able to engage II learning strategies, whereas the PFB group was not. Additionally, the NFB group was able to achieve significantly higher accuracy than the PFB group by Day 3. Experiment 3 revealed that these differences remained even when we equated the information received on feedback trials. Thus, negative feedback appears significantly more effective for learning II category structures. This suggests that the human implicit learning system may be capable of learning in the absence of positive feedback.     

Human operant learning under concurrent reinforcement of response variability

This study asked whether the concurrent reinforcement of behavioral variability facilitates learning to emit a difficult target response. Sixty students repeatedly pressed sequences of keys, with an originally infrequently occurring target sequence consistently being followed by positive feedback. Three conditions differed in the feedback given to non-target sequences: concurrent positive feedback presented contingent on response variability, positive feedback presented non-contingently, or no reinforcement for any non-target responses (control condition). Contrary to the result of analogous rat studies, if anything, the participants in the control condition more readily learned to emit the target sequence than did the subjects in each of the other two conditions. It is argued that these contradictory findings are primarily caused by procedural differences, such as differences in the density of the reinforcement schedule applied to non-target behavior, rather than reflecting a true species difference.     

The recall of affirmative and negative sentences in an incidental learning task

This experiment examined the recall of positive and negative information in an incidental learning task. The two main findings were that a significantly greater number of affirmative than negative clues were correctly recalled and that the majority of errors took the form of conversions from negative to affirmative, independently of meaning. The difficulty associated with the negative clues was explained in terms of their inappropriateness in the situation, namely in the absence of any prior expectations.     

Discriminative properties of shock-correlated reinforcement in an operant context

A two-choice discrete operant procedure was devised for the study of shock-correlated reinforcement effects in rats. In the presence of one auditory stimulus, responding on one response lever was reinforced with food; with another auditory stimulus, responding on a second lever was reinforced. It was found that discrimination performance of one group, relative to appropriate control groups, was facilitated when electric shock was correlated with reinforcement on one lever and not on the other. Further, relative discrimination levels were found to be higher on the lever correlated with the shock than on the alternate lever. The significance of the results for operant within-S studies and for a mediational theory of shock-correlated reinforcement was discussed.     

Using modeling and vicarious reinforcement to produce more positive attitudes toward mental health treatment

In this study, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of a video, developed for this study and using principles of cognitive learning theory, to produce positive attitudinal change toward mental health treatment. The participants were 35 men and 45 women who were randomly assigned to watch either an experimental video, which included 3 positive 1st-person accounts of psychotherapy or a control video that focused on the psychological construct of self. Pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 2-week follow-up levels of attitude toward mental health treatment were measured using the Attitude Toward Seeking Professional Help Scale (E. H. Fischer & J. L. Turner, 1970). The experimental video group showed a significantly greater increase in positive attitude than did the control group. These results support the effectiveness of using the vicarious reinforcement elements of cognitive learning theory as a basis for changing attitudes toward mental health treatment.     

Negative effects of positive reinforcement

Procedures classified as positive reinforcement are generally regarded as more desirable than those classified as aversive-those that involve negative reinforcement or punishment. This is a crude test of the desirability of a procedure to change or maintain behavior. The problems can be identified on the basis of theory, experimental analysis, and consideration of practical cases. Theoretically, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement has proven difficult (some would say the distinction is untenable). When the distinction is made purely in operational terms, experiments reveal that positive reinforcement has aversive functions. On a practical level, positive reinforcement can lead to deleterious effects, and it is implicated in a range of personal and societal problems. These issues challenge us to identify other criteria for judging behavioral procedures.     

The effects of positive versus negative feedback on information-integration category learning

A number of studies have shown that in category learning, providing feedback about errors allows faster learning than providing feedback about correct responses. However, these previous studies used explicit, rule-based tasks in which the category structures could be separated by a simple rule that was easily verbalized. Here, the results of the first experiment known to compare the efficacy of positive versus negative feedback during information-integration category learning are reported. Information-integration tasks require participants to integrate perceptual information from incommensurable dimensions, and evidence suggests that optimal responding recruits procedural learning. The results show that although nearly all of the full-feedback control participants demonstrated information-integration learning, participants receiving either positive-only or negative-only feedback generally used explicit, rule-based strategies. It thus appears that, unlike rule-based learning, consistent information-integration learning requires full feedback. The theoretical implications of these findings for current models of information-integration learning are discussed.     

Parity effects in an implicit‐learning task

Is it possible to extract knowledge from complex material and then unknowingly use it? This key question in the field of implicit learning is addressed here in three experiments using the invariant paradigm. The experiments showed that after seeing a series of items consisting of pairs of 2‐digit numbers (e.g. [52; 74]) governed by a rule, subjects judged that new items that followed the rule were more familiar than ones that did not. Experiment 1 showed that this effect was observed when all bigrams seen in phase 2 were new. Experiments 2 and 3 controlled for some ‘classic’ biases and showed that the effect depended on what rule was at stake. An effect was observed only if the rule used brought to bear a salient categorical property in memory: parity.     

Comparing positive and negative reinforcement: A fantasy experiment

We propose quantitative experimental approaches to the question of whether positive and negative reinforcement are functionally different, and discuss scientific and ethical concerns that would arise if these approaches were pursued.     

Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning

In human causal learning, positive patterning (PP) and negative patterning (NP) discriminations are often acquired at roughly the same rate, whereas PP is learned faster than NP in most experiments with nonhuman animals. One likely reason for this discrepancy is that most causal learning scenarios encourage participants to treat the presentation and omission of the relevant outcome as two events of comparable significance and likelihood. To investigate this, the current experiments compared PP and NP using a predictive learning paradigm based on a mock gambling task. In Experiment 1, one outcome (winning) was made more salient by being less frequent than the alternative outcome (losing). Under these circumstances, PP was learned faster than NP. In Experiment 2, subjects learned two PP and two NP discriminations, one involved win versus no change outcomes, the other involved lose versus no change outcomes. The subjects learned PP faster than NP, but only when discriminating win from no change. We argue that a difference in difficulty between PP and NP relies on a difference in the salience of the outcomes, consistent with the predictions of a relatively simple model of associative learning.     

Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning

In human causal learning, positive patterning (PP) and negative patterning (NP) discriminations are often acquired at roughly the same rate, whereas PP is learned faster than NP in most experiments with nonhuman animals. One likely reason for this discrepancy is that most causal learning scenarios encourage participants to treat the presentation and omission of the relevant outcome as two events of comparable significance and likelihood. To investigate this, the current experiments compared PP and NP using a predictive learning paradigm based on a mock gambling task. In Experiment 1, one outcome (winning) was made more salient by being less frequent than the alternative outcome (losing). Under these circumstances, PP was learned faster than NP. In Experiment 2, subjects learned two PP and two NP discriminations, one involved win versus no change outcomes, the other involved lose versus no change outcomes. The subjects learned PP faster than NP, but only when discriminating win from no change. We argue that a difference in difficulty between PP and NP relies on a difference in the salience of the outcomes, consistent with the predictions of a relatively simple model of associative learning.