正强化和负强化:概念、争议与神经机制

1975年,Michael首次正式提出应放弃"正强化"和"负强化"术语的使用,引起对"正强化和负强化是否本质上具有区别"这一问题的关注和争议。正负强化究竟本质上是否有区分、如何区分、以及区分它们的意义等问题,得到了众多行为心理学家的深入探讨。多数学者再度阐明正强化和负强化具有不同的心理机制,加以区分具有重要应用意义,主张沿用对它们的区分。最近,对正负强化神经机制的研究取得突破性进展,进一步揭示它们具有截然不同的神经相关过程。我们建议,分析强化作用进行时,机体是否在环境条件作用下已经偏离了基础、正常的心理稳态,有助于规范理解强化物启动的是正还是负强化的神经过程。     

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.     

Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved?

Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence. Moreover, there is no good basis, either behavioral or physiological, that indicates the involvement of distinctly different processes, and on these grounds he proposed that the distinction be abandoned. Despite the cogency of Michael's analysis, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is still being taught. In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years. However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a negative reinforcer. We conclude by reiterating Michael's admonitions about the conceptual confusion created by such a distinction.     

AVERSIVE CONTROL: A SEPARATE DOMAIN?

Traditionally, aversive control has been viewed as a separate domain within behavior theory. Sometimes this separateness has been based upon a distinction between reinforcement and punishment, and sometimes upon a distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. The latter is regarded here as the more compelling basis, due to some inherent procedural asymmetries. An approach to the interpretation of negative reinforcement is presented, with indication of types of experiments that support it and that also point to promising directions for further work. However, most of the interpretive issues that arise here are relevant to positively reinforced behavior as well. These include: possible reformulation of the operant/respondent distinction; the place of emotional concepts in behavior analysis; the need for simultaneous, complementary analysis on differing time scales; the understanding of behavioral situations with rewarding or aversive properties that depend as much upon the contingencies that the situations involve as upon the primary rewarding or aversive stimuli that they include. Thus, an adequate understanding of this domain, which has been traditionally viewed as distinct, has implications for all domains of behavior-analytic theory.     

The effects of variable-time delivery of food items and praise on problem behavior reinforced by escape

Prior research indicates that reinforcement of an appropriate response (e.g., compliance) can produce concomitant reductions in problem behavior reinforced by escape when problem behavior continues to produce negative reinforcement (e.g., Lalli et al., 1999). These effects may be due to a preference for positive over negative reinforcement or to positive reinforcement acting as an abolishing operation, rendering demands less aversive and escape from demands less effective as negative reinforcement. In the current investigation, we delivered a preferred food item and praise on a variable-time 15-s schedule while providing escape for problem behavior on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule in a demand condition for 3 participants with problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. Results for all 3 participants showed that variable-time delivery of preferred edible items reduced problem behavior even though escape continued to be available for these responses. These findings are discussed in the context of motivating operations.     

Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration

We propose that a fundamental unit of behavior is the concurrent discriminated operant, and we discuss in detail a quantitative model of the concurrent three-term contingency that is based on the notion that an animal's behavior is controlled to differing extents by both stimulus—behavior and behavior—reinforcer relations. We show how this model can describe performance in a variety of experimental procedures: conditional discrimination and matching to sample, both with and without reinforcement for responses that are traditionally identified as errors; conditional discrimination with more than two stimuli and choice alternatives; delayed matching to sample and delayed reinforcement in matching to sample; second-order and complex conditional discrimination; and multiple and concurrent schedules. Although the model is incomplete in its coverage, and may be incorrect, we believe that this conceptual approach will bear fruit in the development of behavior theory.     

The etymology of basic concepts in the experimental analysis of behavior

The origins of many of the basic concepts used in the experimental analysis of behavior can be traced to Pavlov's (1927/1960) discussion of unconditional and conditional reflexes in the dog, but often with substantial changes in meaning (e.g., stimulus, response, and reinforcement). Other terms were added by Skinner (1938/1991) to describe his data on the rate of lever pressing in the rat (e.g., operant conditioning, conditioned reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and response induction and differentiation) and key pecking in the pigeon (shaping). The concept of drive, however, has largely disappeared from the current literature.     

Quantitative and methodological aspects of stimulus equivalence

The number of different ways of linking stimuli in the training phase of a conditional discrimination procedure designed to teach equivalence relations has hitherto been underestimated. An algorithm from graph theory that produces the correct number of such different ways is given. The establishment of equivalence relations requires transitive stimulus control. A misconception in a previous analysis of the conditions necessary for demonstrating transitive stimulus control is indicated. This misconception concerns responding in an unreinforced test trial to a negative rather than a positive comparison stimulus. Such behavior cannot be attributed to discriminative control by degree of association with reinforcement if the negative comparison stimulus has been less associated with reinforcement than the positive comparison stimulus in an antecedent training phase.     

Theoretical implications of quantitative properties of interval timing and probability estimation in mouse and rat

Although theoretical discussions typically assume that positive and negative reinforcement differ, the literature contains little unambiguous evidence that they produce differential behavioral effects. To test whether the two types of consequences control behavior differently, we pitted money‐gain positive reinforcement and money‐loss‐avoidance negative reinforcement, scheduled through identically programmed variable‐cycle schedules, against each other in concurrent schedules. Contingencies of response‐produced feedback, normally different in positive and negative reinforcement, were made symmetrical. Steeper matching slopes were produced compared to a baseline consisting of all positive reinforcement. This free‐operant differential outcomes effect supports the notion that that stimulus‐presentation positive reinforcement and stimulus‐elimination negative reinforcement are functionally “different.” However, a control experiment showed that the feedback asymmetry of more traditional positive and negative reinforcement schedules also is sufficient to create a “difference” when the type of consequence is held constant. We offer these findings as a small step in meeting the very large challenge of moving negative reinforcement theory beyond decades of relative quiescence.     

The effects of noncontingent reinforcement on task disengagement following failure of differential reinforcement treatment

Following the failure of applications of differential reinforcement (DR), the effects of reinforcement delivered noncontingently (NCR) on task disengagement and task completion were evaluated within reversal designs for three children with autism spectrum disorder. In Experiment 1, we compared DR and NCR schedules that combined positive and negative reinforcement. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment 1 and then evaluated NCR schedules composed solely of negative reinforcement and NCR schedules that combined negative reinforcement with high-or low-preferred stimuli. In Experiment 3, we further analyzed NCR schedules that included different types and qualities of positive reinforcement, but without the inclusion of negative reinforcement. The results showed that NCR schedules using positive reinforcers can be effective as a treatment for task disengagement, but the type and preference of the reinforcer can alter effectiveness. These results are interpreted in terms of the motivating operations associated with task disengagement.     

Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses of their causes.

Stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors are common forms of maladaptive responding demonstrated by severely handicapped persons. Various review papers suggest that no single treatment procedure is universally effective. Although there may be many reasons for this finding, one could be that people engage in these behaviors for various reasons, and that procedures that are incompatible with the cause of the behavior are unlikely to be effective. These studies also suggest many hypotheses for the development and maintenance of these behaviors, three of which are the self-stimulation, positive reinforcement, and negative reinforcement hypotheses. The purpose of this paper was to determine whether one of these hypotheses could be matched to the cause of the behavior and used as an effective treatment procedure. We therefore compared one hypothesis with one other for 3 subjects in a three-phase study. During baseline, data were taken in two classrooms for each subject, and a judgement was made about the hypothesis most likely to be related to the cause of the behavior. During the second phase, a treatment based on that hypothesis was used in one classroom, and a treatment based on another hypothesis was used in the second classroom. During the third phase, the treatment that was most effective in the second phase was used in both classrooms. Results showed that a successful treatment program can be developed on an hypothesis of why the behavior occurred during baseline. Results are discussed in terms of supporting the argument that treatment programs should be based on a functional analysis of the behavior in its environmental context.     

An evaluation of differential reinforcement with stimulus fading as an intervention for medical compliance

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often exhibit noncompliance during medical exams. One intervention used to address this concern is differential reinforcement. Although differential reinforcement includes extinction, it may not be feasible or safe to implement extinction during medical exams. In the current study, we evaluated differential reinforcement without extinction and differential reinforcement without extinction plus stimulus fading, for increasing compliance during routine medical exams exhibited by 4 individuals with ASD. An indirect assessment identified problematic medical procedures, and a functional analysis showed that participants' disruptive behavior was maintained by escape from medical tasks. Differential reinforcement without extinction was insufficient in increasing medical compliance with 3 of 4 participants. The addition of a modified stimulus fading procedure that involved gradually introducing smaller components of problematic exam steps was effective in increasing medical compliance with all exam steps.     

COMBINING NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES AS TREATMENT FOR ABERRANT BEHAVIOR

Research has shown that noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be an effective behavior-reduction procedure when based on a functional analysis. The effects of NCR may be a result of elimination of the contingency between aberrant behavior and reinforcing consequences (extinction) or frequent and free access to reinforcers that may reduce the participant's motivation to engage in aberrant behaviors or mands. If motivation is momentarily reduced, behavior such as mands may not be sensitive to positive reinforcement. In this study, for 3 children with aberrant behavior maintained by tangible positive reinforcement, differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior schedules were superimposed on NCR schedules to determine if mands could be strengthened. Results for the participants indicated that NCR did not preclude reinforcement of mands.     

Designing interventions that include delayed reinforcement: implications of recent laboratory research

The search for robust and durable interventions in everyday situations typically involves the use of delayed reinforcers, sometimes delivered well after a target behavior occurs. Integrating the findings from laboratory research on delayed reinforcement can contribute to the design and analysis of those applied interventions. As illustrations, we examine articles from the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior that analyzed delayed reinforcement with respect to response allocation (A. M. Williams & Lattal, 1999), stimulus chaining (B. A. Williams, 1999), and self-control (Jackson & Hackenberg, 1996). These studies help to clarify the conditions under which delayed reinforcement (a) exercises control of behavior, (b) entails conditioned reinforcement, and (c) displaces the effects of immediate reinforcement. The research has applied implications, including the development of positive social behavior and teaching people to make adaptive choices. DESCRIPTORS: delayed reinforcement, response allocation, stimulus chains, self-control, integration of basic and applied research     

NONCONTINGENT ESCAPE AS TREATMENT FOR SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR MAINTAINED BY NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT

We extended research on the role of noncontingent positive reinforcement following a functional analysis of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior to self-injury maintained by negative reinforcement in 2 young males with developmental disabilities. During a pretreatment functional analysis, each participant's self-injury was shown to be differentially sensitive to escape from instructional activities as negative reinforcement. During noncontingent escape, escape from learning activities was provided on a fixed-time schedule that was not influenced by the participant's behavior. One participant was also exposed to differential negative reinforcement of other behavior. During this condition, escape from instructional activities was provided contingent on the omission of self-injury for prespecified intervals. Results showed that the provision of escape, even when noncontingent, resulted in significant reductions in self-injury. These results are particularly interesting in light of the experimental history of noncontingent reinforcement as a control rather than as a therapeutic procedure. Noncontingent escape is discussed as a form of extinction that may be less likely than other forms of extinction to produce severe side effects.     

THE USE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN THE TREATMENT OF ESCAPE-MAINTAINED DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR

We identified 3 clients whose destructive behavior was sensitive to negative reinforcement (break from tasks) and positive reinforcement (access to tangible items, attention, or both). In an instructional context, we then evaluated the effects of reinforcing compliance with one, two, or all of these consequences (a break, tangible items, attention) when destructive behavior produced a break and when it did not (escape extinction). For 2 clients, destructive behavior decreased and compliance increased when compliance produced access to tangible items, even though destructive behavior resulted in a break. For 1 client, extinction was necessary to reduce destructive behavior and to increase compliance. Subsequently, when the schedule of reinforcement for compliance was faded for all clients, destructive behavior was lower and fading proceeded more rapidly when compliance produced multiple functional reinforcers (i.e., a break plus tangible items or attention) and destructive behavior was on extinction. The results are discussed in terms of the effects of relative reinforcement value and extinction on concurrent operants.     

Analysis and treatment of problem behavior evoked by music

The present study investigated the effects of differential negative reinforcement of other behavior (DNRO) on problem behavior evoked by music in a 7-year-old child with pervasive developmental disorder. Following an auditory stimulus assessment, DNRO was used to reduce problem behavior to near-zero levels. Results are discussed in terms of identifying establishing operations to govern treatment options and the use of negative reinforcement when arbitrarily imposed positive reinforcers do not compete with escape from auditory stimulation.     

Evaluating the effects of discriminability on behavioral persistence during and following time‐based reinforcement

With four children with autism we evaluated a refinement to time‐based reinforcement designed to reduce response persistence when we simultaneously introduced time‐based reinforcement and extinction. We further evaluated whether this refinement mitigated response recurrence when all reinforcer deliveries ceased during an extinction‐only disruptor phase. The refinement involved increasing the saliency of the contingency change from contingent reinforcement (during baseline) to time‐based reinforcement by delivering different colored reinforcers during time‐based reinforcement. Behavioral momentum theory predicts that increasing the discriminability of the change from variable‐interval to variable‐time reinforcement should lead to faster reductions in responding. We present data on four participants, three of whom displayed response patterns consistent with the predictions of behavioral momentum theory during time‐based reinforcement. However, the participants showed more varied patterns of recurrent behavior during extinction. We discuss these results within a translational research framework focusing on strategies used to mitigate treatment relapse for severe destructive behavior, as time‐based reinforcement is one of the most commonly prescribed interventions for destructive behavior displayed by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.     

Reinforcement contingencies and social reinforcement: some reciprocal relations between basic and applied research.

Reinforcement contingencies and social reinforcement are ubiquitous phenomena in applied behavior analysis. This discussion paper is divided into two sections. In the first section, reinforcement contingencies are discussed in terms of the necessary and sufficient conditions for reinforcement effects. Response‐stimulus dependencies, conditional probabilities, and contiguity are discussed as possible mechanisms of, and arrangements for, reinforcement effects. In the second section, social reinforcement is discussed in terms of its functional subtypes and reinforcement context effects. Two underlying themes run throughout the discussion: (a) Applied research would benefit from a greater understanding of existing basic research, and (b) basic research could be designed to specifically address some of the issues about reinforcement that are central to effective application.