The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: use with care

It is customary in behavior analysis to distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of whether the reinforcing event involves onset or offset of a stimulus. In a previous article (Baron & Galizio, 2005), we concluded that a distinction of these terms is not only ambiguous but has little if any functional significance. Here, we respond to commentaries by a group of distinguished behavior analysts about the issues we raised. Although several of the commentators argued for preservation of the distinction, we remain unconvinced that its benefits outweigh its weaknesses. Because this distinction is so deeply embedded in the language of behavior analysis, we hardly expect that it will be abandoned. However, we hope that the terms positive and negative reinforcement will be used with circumspection and with full knowledge of the confusion they can engender.     

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.     

Choices between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior.

Positive reinforcement was more effective than negative reinforcement in promoting compliance and reducing escape‐maintained problem behavior for a child with autism. Escape extinction was then added while the child was given a choice between positive or negative reinforcement for compliance and the reinforcement schedule was thinned. When the reinforcement requirement reached 10 consecutive tasks, the treatment effects became inconsistent and reinforcer selection shifted from a strong preference for positive reinforcement to an unstable selection pattern.     

Concurrent schedules of positive and negative reinforcement: differential-impact and differential-outcomes hypotheses

Considerable evidence from outside of operant psychology suggests that aversive events exert greater influence over behavior than equal-sized positive-reinforcement events. Operant theory is largely moot on this point, and most operant research is uninformative because of a scaling problem that prevents aversive events and those based on positive reinforcement from being directly compared. In the present investigation, humans' mouse-click responses were maintained on similarly structured, concurrent schedules of positive (money gain) and negative (avoidance of money loss) reinforcement. Because gains and losses were of equal magnitude, according to the analytical conventions of the generalized matching law, bias (log b (double dagger) 0) would indicate differential impact by one type of consequence; however, no systematic bias was observed. Further research is needed to reconcile this outcome with apparently robust findings in other literatures of superior behavior control by aversive events. In an incidental finding, the linear function relating log behavior ratio and log reinforcement ratio was steeper for concurrent negative and positive reinforcement than for control conditions involving concurrent positive reinforcement. This may represent the first empirical confirmation of a free-operant differential-outcomes effect predicted by contingency-discriminability theories of choice.     

The influence of positive and negative reinforcement on selective attention in the rat

In Experiments 1 and 2 rats were trained under two multiple schedules of reinforcement. In one, bar pressing during a tone-light compound stimulus was reinforced under a variable-interval food reinforcement schedule. In the other multiple schedule, bar pressing avoided grid shock on a free-operant schedule. In both multiple schedules, a discrimination was maintained by an extinction schedule that was operative during the absence of the tone-light compound. In Experiments 1 and 2 the intensity of the tone-light compound was manipulated over three levels. Subsequent extinction tests revealed that light was attended to, almost exclusively of the tone, when food reinforcement had maintained bar pressing. On the other hand, the tone gained considerable attentional control under the shock avoidance schedule. This stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained for all three levels of the compound intensity. In Experiment 3 it was investigated whether this interaction was associative by presenting shock during the absence of the tone-light compound when food reinforcement maintained responding, and food during the absence of the compound when shock avoidance maintained responding. Since both food and shock were presented during a single session for both schedules, nonassociative effects of the reinforcing stimuli were equivalent across the schedules. Nevertheless, the stimulus-reinforcer interaction was maintained, indicating that the interaction was an associative effect.     

The eyes have it: making positive expressions more positive and negative expressions more negative

Facial expressions frequently involve multiple individual facial actions. How do facial actions combine to create emotionally meaningful expressions? Infants produce positive and negative facial expressions at a range of intensities. It may be that a given facial action can index the intensity of both positive (smiles) and negative (cry-face) expressions. Objective, automated measurements of facial action intensity were paired with continuous ratings of emotional valence to investigate this possibility. Degree of eye constriction (the Duchenne marker) and mouth opening were each uniquely associated with smile intensity and, independently, with cry-face intensity. In addition, degree of eye constriction and mouth opening were each unique predictors of emotion valence ratings. Eye constriction and mouth opening index the intensity of both positive and negative infant facial expressions, suggesting parsimony in the early communication of emotion.     

Development and modification of a response class via positive and negative reinforcement: a translational approach

When responses function to produce the same reinforcer, a response class exists. Researchers have examined response classes in applied settings; however, the challenges associated with conducting applied research on response class development have recently necessitated the development of an analogue response class model. To date, little research has examined response classes that are strengthened by negative reinforcement. The current investigation was designed to develop a laboratory model of a response class through positive reinforcement (i.e., points exchangeable for money) and through negative reinforcement (i.e., the avoidance of scheduled point losses) with 11 college students as participants and clicks as the operant. Results of both the positive and negative reinforcement evaluations showed that participants usually selected the least effortful response that produced points or the avoidance of point losses, respectively. The applied implications of the findings are discussed, along with the relevance of the present model to the study of punishment and resurgence.     

Weight reduction as a function of negative covert reinforcement (sensitization) versus positive covert reinforcement

The use of covert or imaginal procedures for weight reduction was evaluated using both positive covert reinforcement and negative (covert sensitization) in group treatment. The results indicate that both of these groups had significantly greater weight losses than a minimal treatment control group. Although the covert, positive reinforcement group did not significantly differ from the negative, its mean weight loss (in lbs) was greater at the end of the four week program. Both groups showed a further weight loss at a three month follow-up, although the changes in mean loss were not statistically significant. The control group, on the other hand, lost a significant amount of weight between the end of treatment and follow-up. However, at follow-up both positive and negative groups still had significantly greater weight losses than the control.     

Acquisition of cup drinking using previously refused foods as positive and negative reinforcement

We used previously refused foods as positive and negative reinforcement in the acquisition of cup drinking. Cup drinking increased with positive and negative reinforcement, both alone and in combination (without escape extinction), indicating that treatment of food refusal can establish some foods as appetitive stimuli whereas others remain aversive.