negative reinforcement assignments

What Is Negative Reinforcement?

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

In negative reinforcement, first devised by B. F. Skinner, an undesirable stimulus is removed to increase a behavior.
If an organism is exposed to an aversive situation, and the termination of that situation is made contingent upon some response, then we say that the organism is being negatively reinforced.
There are two types of negative reinforcement: escape and avoidance learning. Escape learning occurs when an animal performs a behavior to end an aversive stimulus, while avoidance learning involves performing a behavior to prevent the aversive stimulus.
Negative reinforcement can be effective, but scholars generally agree that it must be used sparingly and is best for reinforcing short-term behaviors.

How Does It Work?

Negative reinforcement refers to the process of removing an unpleasant stimulus after the desired behavior is displayed in order to increase the likelihood of that behavior being repeated.

Negative reinforcement is a basic principle of Skinner’s operant conditioning , which focuses on how animals and humans learn by observing the consequences of their own actions (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).

Skinner argued that learning is an active process. When humans and animals act on and in their environment, consequences follow these behaviors. If the consequences are pleasant, they repeat the behavior, but if the consequences are unpleasant, they do not repeat the behavior.

The word “negative” in the phrase “negative reinforcement” means simply to “take something away. It is this removal of a stimulus that is intended to strengthen a desirable behavior.

Thus, negative reinforcement is not intended to reinforce negative or undesirable behavior (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).

Negative reinforcement occurs when performing an action stops something unpleasant from happening. For example, in one of Skinner’s experiments, a rat had to press a lever to stop receiving an electric shock.

One example of negative reinforcement that often appears in adult life involves driving. Imagine that someone is driving to work and is running late.

The driver sees that the speed limit is 55 mph but decides to go 65 mph so that they can get to work on time.

Suddenly, they see a police car in their rearview mirror with its lights on. The aversive stimulus (getting pulled over) is now present, and so they slow down to the speed limit.

In this case, the desired behavior (driving the speed limit) has occurred as a result of the aversive stimulus (getting pulled over).

In another scenario, someone could drive through rush hour traffic to get to work.

Their commute could take an hour or more, and it is very stressful. They may decide to leave work early one day so that they can avoid the traffic.

Alternatively, they may decide to take a route that has very little traffic and make it to work in 45 minutes.

That person, after getting the same results later in the week, may start taking this new route everyday. In this case, removing the negative stimulus of bad traffic changes the behavior of the driver (Chen, Zhang, Gong, & Lee, 2019).

Types of Negative Reinforcement

There are two main types of negative reinforcement: escape and avoidance. These differ when the aversive stimulus is removed.

Escape Learning

Escape learning occurs when an animal performs a behavior (such as pressing a lever) to stop or avoid an aversive stimulus (such as an electric shock) (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).

For example, a rat in a Skinner box may learn to press a lever to stop the delivery of an electric shock.

Once the animal has learned this behavior, the delivery of shock serves as an aversive stimulus that can be used to reinforce other desired behaviors (such as pressing a different lever).

Avoidance Learning

Avoidance learning occurs when an animal performs a behavior (such as jumping over a hurdle) to avoid or escape an aversive stimulus (such as an electric shock).

For example, a bird in a laboratory experiment may learn to go into a dark compartment to avoid being exposed to a loud noise.

Once the animal has learned this behavior, the loud noise serves as an aversive stimulus that can be used to reinforce other desired behaviors (such as going into dark compartments, even when there is no aversive stimulus present) (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).

How is it different than punishment?

Many people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment in operant conditioning, but they are two very different mechanisms.

Remember that reinforcement, even when it is negative, always increases a behavior. In contrast, punishment always decreases behavior.

Negative reinforcement, on the other hand, removes an unpleasant condition after a desired behavior is displayed to increase the likelihood of that behavior being repeated in the future (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).

Punishment involves bringing an unpleasant consequence after a behavior has already occurred to decrease its likelihood of happening again in the future.

For example, a child may lie about doing his chores, provoking his parents to give him extra chores. In this case, extra chores are an undesirable consequence to eliminate the behavior of lying.

As another example of punishment, a teacher may take away a student’s recess because they were talking too much in class.

This is not negative reinforcement because the teacher is taking away a positive consequence (recess) after the behavior (talking too much in class) has already occurred (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).

All in all, punishment is intended to be an aversive stimulus that decreases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated, while negative reinforcement is intended to remove an aversive stimulus in order to increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated.

Negative reinforcement is not the opposite of positive reinforcement

Both positive and negative reinforcement increases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. The only difference is the type of consequence used to achieve this goal.

While positive reinforcement uses a desirable consequence to increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated, negative reinforcement removes an unpleasant condition after the behavior is displayed in order to increase its future occurrence (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).

For example, imagine a parent trying to potty train their child. Every time they use the toilet, the parent praises them and gives them a sticker.

This is an example of positive reinforcement because the parent is providing a desirable consequence (praise and stickers) after the desired behavior (using the toilet) has occurred to increase its future occurrence.

Now imagine that instead of praising and rewarding your child every time they use the toilet, the parent simply stops nagging them about it.

This is an example of negative reinforcement because you are removing an aversive stimulus (nagging) after the desired behavior (using the toilet) has occurred in order to increase its future occurrence.

In the classroom

Negative reinforcement can be used in any situation where behavior change needs to occur.

One common example of negative reinforcement in the classroom is when a teacher gives students extra credit for turning in their homework on time.

Imagine this is a scenario where students are avoiding turning in their homework on time because they wish to do it more thoroughly in order to avoid a lower grade.

In this case, the extra credit is intended to remove the unpleasant condition (receiving a poor grade) after the desired behavior (turning in homework on time) has occurred in order to increase its future occurrence (Gunter & Coutinho, 1997).

In this example, the extra credit is not given if the student does not turn in their homework on time. This is because negative reinforcement is only intended to work when it follows the desired behavior.

If the extra credit was given regardless of whether or not the homework was turned in on time, then it would simply be a reward and would not function as negative reinforcement.

Another common example of negative reinforcement in the classroom is when a teacher threatens to give students detention if they do not complete their homework.

In this case, the removal of the aversive stimulus (detention) is contingent on the desired behavior (completing homework) being displayed (Gunter & Coutinho, 1997).

Again, it is important to note that negative reinforcement should only be used after the desired behavior has already been displayed.

If students are given detention regardless of whether or not they complete their homework, then it is simply punishment and will not function as negative reinforcement.

Although this negative reinforcement could be effective in encouraging positive behavior, some researchers contend that positive reinforcement should be emphasized and negative reinforcement used sparingly.

They argue that focusing on the positive (e.g., rewarding students for completing their homework) is more likely to result in long-term behavior change than focusing on the negative (e.g., threatening students with detention if they do not complete their homework).

In this view, negative reinforcement is best for immediate behavioral changes (Gunter & Coutinho, 1997).

Effectiveness

Whether or not negative reinforcement is an effective way to change behavior depends on a number of factors, including the age and maturity of the learner, the severity of the aversive stimulus, and the desirability of the desired behavior.

Negative reinforcement can be particularly effective when the aversive stimulus is something that the learner genuinely wants to avoid.

For example, if a student is trying to study for an exam but is easily distracted by social media, using negative reinforcement (e.g., threatening to take away their phone if they do not study) could be an effective way to get them to focus on their work (Dad, Ali, Janjua, Shazad, & Khan, 2010).

However, if the aversive stimulus is not something that the learner cares about, then it is unlikely to be effective.

For example, if a student does not care about detention, then threatening them with detention is not likely to be an effective way to get them to do their homework.

In general, negative reinforcement is most effective when it is used sparingly and only for behaviors that are genuinely undesirable.

Using it too frequently or for minor infractions can result in the learner becoming Ortony, Clore, & Collins (1988) argue that punishment (including negative reinforcement) should only be used “as a last resort” after other methods of behavior change have failed (Dad, Ali, Janjua, Shazad, & Khan, 2010).

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chen, C., Zhang, K. Z., Gong, X., & Lee, M. (2019). Dual mechanisms of reinforcement reward and habit in driving smartphone addiction: the role of smartphone features. Internet Research .

Dad, H., Ali, R., Janjua, M. Z. Q., Shahzad, S., & Khan, M. S. (2010). Comparison of the frequency and effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcement practices in schools. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3 (1), 127-136.

Dozier, C. L., Foley, E. A., Goddard, K. S., & Jess, R. L. (2019). Reinforcement. The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development , 1-10.

Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Gunter, P. L., & Coutinho, M. J. (1997). Negative reinforcement in classrooms: What we”re beginning to learn. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20 (3), 249-264.

Kohler, W. (1924). The mentality of apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis . New York: Appleton-Century.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition” in the pigeon . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38 , 168-172.

Skinner, B. F. (1951). How to teach animals . Freeman.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . SimonandSchuster.com.

Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18 (8), 503.

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it . Psychological Review, 20 , 158–177.

Understanding Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement is a learning method that reinforces desired behaviors instead of punishing unwanted ones.

Humans learn in many different ways.

One of the main ways that we — along with other animal species — learn is through behavior reinforcement. We learn to behave in certain ways to seek a reward or to avoid (uncomfortable) consequences.

A classic example of an award for desired behaviors is a child studying hard for their exam, so they get to go out for an ice cream cone when they get an A+.

Positive reinforcement (rewards) and punishment are both well-known learning and behavior management strategies. But there’s another learning method that you may not have heard of: negative reinforcement.

What is negative reinforcement?

Negative reinforcement is a behavior management strategy that parents and teachers can use with children. It involves taking away something unpleasant in response to a stimulus.

With time, children learn that when they engage in “good” behaviors, then this unpleasant thing or experience goes away.

Both negative and positive reinforcement have been studied since the 1930s as part of a learning method called operant conditioning .

Operant conditioning was first described by a behavior scientist named B.F. Skinner. Skinner ran experiments on rats to see what consequences led the animals to change their behaviors.

Operant conditioning centers around the concept of behavior reinforcement and punishment. By reinforcing desired behaviors (either through negative or positive reinforcement), these behaviors become more likely to reoccur.

And by punishing undesired behaviors, those behaviors start to decrease in an effort to avoid the punishment.

Examples of negative reinforcement

Whether you know it or not, negative reinforcement has probably affected your behavior at some point in your life. For example:

You take prescribed medication so health symptoms go away.
You let the car tailgating you pass so they stop honking.
You get out of bed so your alarm stops ringing.

These are all ways in which negative reinforcement might unknowingly be changing your behavior. You adjust your behavior so that the unpleasant or negative “stimulus” (experience) goes away.

Is negative reinforcement good for kids?

Many educators and behavior therapists are very familiar with the general concept of positive and negative reinforcement. According to a 2019 meta-analysis , it can effectively manage children’s behavior.

Let’s look at some examples of how negative reinforcement could work with kids.

Imagine a child who doesn’t want to do his homework. Their parent scolds and nags them about it, which the child finds unpleasant.

When the child does their homework (the desired behavior), the parent stops nagging. The unpleasant experience goes away. The child learns that the unpleasant experience will go away if they do their homework.

Here are some other examples of negative reinforcement with children:

You take away your child’s chores for the weekend because they kept their room clean all week.
You remove your child’s grounding period because they worked on their homework.
Your child’s sibling stops crying loudly when they stop arguing with them.

When used well, negative reinforcement can be an excellent tool for behavior management. But when used incorrectly, it could unintentionally reinforce misbehavior that you don’t want your child to repeat.

For example, say your child doesn’t want to eat what you’ve cooked for them. The meal is aversive or unpleasant to them, and they begin to throw a tantrum. Overwhelmed, you take the offending trigger — the food — away.

This is negative reinforcement, but could actually reinforce an unwanted behavior: tantrums.

In this interaction, you removed the food so that you could avoid hearing your child tantrum (your child would become calm).

But your child learns that if they throw a tantrum, then the unpleasant experience (having to eat the food cooked for them) goes away.

Positive vs. negative reinforcement

Another type of operant conditioning is positive reinforcement .

Most parents, and other adults working with children, have heard about positive reinforcement strategies for behavior management. Examples of positive reinforcement are:

sticker charts

When using positive reinforcement with kids, you give them some type of reward after every time they engage in positive behavior.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , rewards such as hugs and praise can also increase your child’s self-esteem.

The idea is that this will reinforce this behavior and make it more likely that the child will repeat this behavior in the future.

Positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement have a lot more in common than you might think. They’re both ways to reinforce desired behavior through operant conditioning.

The main difference between them is that a good or pleasant thing (a reward) is added in response to a stimulus (desired behavior) in positive reinforcement.

For negative reinforcement, an unpleasant thing is subtracted in response to the desired behavior.

They both have the same goal: to reinforce desired behavior.

Here are some examples:

Is negative reinforcement the same as punishment?

Some people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment, but these two things are more opposite than similar.

Negative reinforcement has more in common with positive reinforcement than it does with punishment.

The main difference between the two is that punishment is about discouraging unwanted behavior. Both types of reinforcement (both positive and negative) are about reinforcing and encouraging wanted behaviors.

To illustrate the differences between punishment and negative reinforcement, take a look at the following examples.

The differences are sometimes subtle, but they’re important to be aware of.

Important note

Spanking, or any kind of corporal punishment, has been found by 2021 research to raise the risk of problems like mental health disorders, physical health conditions, and defiant behaviors, such as aggression toward others. It’s not an effective parenting strategy.

Let’s recap

Negative reinforcement involves reinforcing desired behaviors instead of punishing unwanted ones.

Negative reinforcement is a type of learning and behavior modification method that can work well when used in the right way and in the right circumstances.

It may unintentionally reinforce undesired behaviors if used incorrectly or without knowledge of underlying behavior modification theory.

Last medically reviewed on October 28, 2022

6 sources collapsed

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How to use rewards. https://www.cdc.gov/parents/essentials/consequences/rewards.html
Dad H, et al. (2010). Comparison of the frequency and effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcement practices in schools. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1072573.pdf
Fortier J, et al. (2021). Associations between lifetime spanking/slapping and adolescent physical and mental health and behavioral outcomes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9014670/
Leitjen P, et al. (2019). Meta-analyses: Key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890856718319804
Lukowiak T, et al. (2010). Punishment strategies: First choice or last resort. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137137.pdf
Staddon JER, et al. (2003). Operant conditioning. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1473025/

How Negative Reinforcement Works

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital.

How Does Negative Reinforcment Work?

Versus Positive Reinforcement
Versus Punishment

Effectiveness

Negative reinforcement strengthens a response or behavior by stopping, removing, or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus. B. F. Skinner first described the term in his theory of operant conditioning .

Rather than delivering an aversive stimulus (punishment) or a reward (positive reinforcement), negative reinforcement works by taking away something that the individual finds undesirable. This removal reinforces the behavior that proceeds it, making it more likely that the response will occur again in the future.

This article discusses how negative reinforcement works, how it compares to other behavioral learning methods, and how effective it can be in the learning process.

Negative reinforcement works to strengthen certain behaviors by removing some type of aversive outcome. As a form of reinforcement, it strengthens the behavior that precedes it. In the case of negative reinforcement, it is the action of removing the undesirable outcome or stimulus that serves as the reward for performing the behavior.

Aversive stimuli tend to involve some type of discomfort, either physical or psychological. Behaviors are negatively reinforced when they allow you to escape from aversive stimuli that are already present or allow you to completely avoid the aversive stimuli before they happen.

Deciding to take an antacid before you indulge in a spicy meal is an example of negative reinforcement. You engage in an action in order to avoid a negative result.

One of the best ways to remember negative reinforcement is to think of it as something being subtracted from the situation.

There are two different types of negative reinforcement: example and avoidance learning. Escape learning involves being able to escape an undesirable stimulus, while avoidance learning involves being able to prevent experiencing the aversive stimulus altogether.

Examples of Negative Reinforcement

Looking at some real-world examples can be a great way to get a better idea about what negative reinforcement is and how it works. Consider the following situations:

Before heading out for a day at the beach, you slather on sunscreen (the behavior) to avoid getting sunburned (removal of the aversive stimulus).
You decide to clean up your mess in the kitchen (the behavior) to avoid getting into a fight with your roommate (removal of the aversive stimulus).
On Monday morning, you leave the house early (the behavior) to avoid getting stuck in traffic and being late for work (removal of an aversive stimulus).
At dinner time, a child pouts and refuses to eat her vegetables for dinner. Her parents quickly take the offending veggies away. Since the behavior (pouting) led to the removal of the aversive stimulus (the veggies), this is an example of negative reinforcement.

Can you identify the negative reinforcer in each of these examples? Sunburn, a fight with your roommate, being late for work, and having to eat vegetables are all negative outcomes that were avoided by performing a specific behavior. By eliminating these undesirable outcomes, preventive behaviors become more likely to occur again in the future.

Negative vs. Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement is a type of reinforcement that involves giving someone the desired reward in response to a behavior. This might involve offering praise, money, or other incentives.

Both positive and negative reinforcement work to increase the likelihood that a behavior will occur again in the future. You can distinguish between the two by noticing whether something is being taken away or added to the situation. If something desirable is being added, then it is positive reinforcement. If something aversive is being taken away, then it is negative reinforcement.

Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment

One mistake that people often make is confusing negative reinforcement with punishment . Remember, however, that negative reinforcement involves the removal of a negative condition to strengthen a behavior.

Punishment involves either presenting or taking away a stimulus to weaken a behavior.

Consider the following example and determine whether you think it is an example of negative reinforcement or punishment:

Luke is supposed to clean his room every Saturday morning. Last weekend, he went out to play with his friend without cleaning his room. As a result, his father made him spend the rest of the weekend doing other chores like cleaning out the garage, mowing the lawn, and weeding the garden, in addition to cleaning his room.

If you said that this was an example of punishment , then you are correct. Because Luke didn't clean his room, his father punished him by making him do extra chores.

If you are trying to distinguish between negative reinforcement or punishment, consider whether something is being added or taken away from a situation.

If an unwanted outcome is being added or applied as a consequence of a behavior, then it is an example of punishment. If something is being removed in order to avoid or relieve an unwanted outcome, then it is an example of negative reinforcement.

Uses for Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement can be utilized in a variety of ways in many different settings. A few examples include:

Parents can use negative reinforcement to encourage positive behaviors in various ways. For example, a parent might eliminate a chore that their child is supposed to do if they finish all of the other tasks on their list. Another example is giving children more time to play on their tablets if they finish all of their homework first.

One example of negative reinforcement in the classroom is canceling a task that students dislike (such as a pop quiz) if they complete all their assigned work on time.

Psychotherapy

Negative reinforcement is often utilized as a part of addiction treatment and behavioral therapy . People who have been convicted of drug-related offenses, for example, might be able to have their sentences reduced if they participate in drug and alcohol treatment.

In behavioral therapy, negative reinforcement can help strengthen positive behaviors. As people develop skills, they may find that practicing new coping skills eliminates unpleasant outcomes, which can help further reinforce new behaviors.

Negative reinforcement can be an effective way to strengthen the desired behavior. However, it is most effective when reinforcers are presented immediately following a behavior. When a long period elapses between the behavior and the reinforcer, the response is likely to be weaker.

In some cases, behaviors that occur in the intervening time between the initial action and the reinforcer are may also be inadvertently strengthened as well.

Some experts believe that negative reinforcement should be used sparingly in classroom settings, while positive reinforcement should be emphasized.

While negative reinforcement can produce immediate results, it may be best suited for short-term use.

Benefits of Negative Reinforcement

While the name of this type of reinforcement often leads people to think that it is a "negative" type of reinforcement, negative reinforcement can have several benefits that can make it a valuable tool in the learning process. Potential advantages include:

It can increase desirable behaviors : Because it involves the removal of an undesirable stimulus, it can help strengthen more positive behaviors.
It can lead to lasting changes : When applied correctly, negative reinforcement can contribute to long-lasting changes in behavior.
It can work quickly : The removal of an aversive stimulus can lead to relatively quick behavior change.

Potential Pitfalls of Negative Reinforcement

While negative reinforcement can be a helpful learning tool, it can have some potential downsides.

It can be misinterpreted : When a negative stimulus is removed, usually without explanation, it can sometimes lead to problems with communication. It can potentially create misunderstandings in relationships where people misread the other person's intentions.
Poor timing can render it ineffective : If the delivery of negative reinforcement is not timed correctly, it can be less effective. A large gap between the behavior and the removal of an aversive stimulus means that people will be less likely to form a connection between the action and the consequences of the action.

A Word From Verywell

Negative reinforcement can have a powerful effect on behavior, but it tends to be most useful when used as a short-term solution. The type of reinforcement used is important, but how quickly and how often the reinforcement is given also plays a major role in the strength of the response. The schedule of reinforcement that is used can have an important impact not only how quickly a behavior is learned, but also on the strength of the response.

Skinner BF. Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 1963;18(8): 503–515. doi:10.1037/h0045185

American Psychological Association. Negative reinforcement .

American Psychological Association. Aversive stimulus .

American Psychological Association. Positive reinforcement .

Sprouls K, Mathur SR, Upreti G. Is positive feedback a forgotten classroom practice? Findings and implications for at-risk students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 2015;59(3), 153-160. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2013.876958

Segers E, Beckers T, Geurts H, Claes L, Danckaerts M, van der Oord S. Working memory and reinforcement schedule jointly determine reinforcement learning in children: Potential implications for behavioral parent training. Front Psychol . 2018;9:394. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00394

Coon, D & Mitterer, JO. Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2010.

Domjan, MP. The Principles of Learning and Behavior: Active Learning Edition . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2010.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Reinforcement and Punishment

Learning objectives.

Explain the difference between reinforcement and punishment (including positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment)
Define shaping
Differentiate between primary and secondary reinforcers

In discussing operant conditioning, we use several everyday words—positive, negative, reinforcement, and punishment—in a specialized manner. In operant conditioning, positive and negative do not mean good and bad. Instead, positive means you are adding something, and negative means you are taking something away. Reinforcement means you are increasing a behavior, and punishment means you are decreasing a behavior. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, and punishment can also be positive or negative. All reinforcers (positive or negative) increase the likelihood of a behavioral response. All punishers (positive or negative) decrease the likelihood of a behavioral response. Now let’s combine these four terms: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment (Table 1).

Reinforcement

The most effective way to teach a person or animal a new behavior is with positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement , a desirable stimulus is added to increase a behavior.

For example, you tell your five-year-old son, Jerome, that if he cleans his room, he will get a toy. Jerome quickly cleans his room because he wants a new art set. Let’s pause for a moment. Some people might say, “Why should I reward my child for doing what is expected?” But in fact we are constantly and consistently rewarded in our lives. Our paychecks are rewards, as are high grades and acceptance into our preferred school. Being praised for doing a good job and for passing a driver’s test is also a reward. Positive reinforcement as a learning tool is extremely effective. It has been found that one of the most effective ways to increase achievement in school districts with below-average reading scores was to pay the children to read. Specifically, second-grade students in Dallas were paid $2 each time they read a book and passed a short quiz about the book. The result was a significant increase in reading comprehension (Fryer, 2010). What do you think about this program? If Skinner were alive today, he would probably think this was a great idea. He was a strong proponent of using operant conditioning principles to influence students’ behavior at school. In fact, in addition to the Skinner box, he also invented what he called a teaching machine that was designed to reward small steps in learning (Skinner, 1961)—an early forerunner of computer-assisted learning. His teaching machine tested students’ knowledge as they worked through various school subjects. If students answered questions correctly, they received immediate positive reinforcement and could continue; if they answered incorrectly, they did not receive any reinforcement. The idea was that students would spend additional time studying the material to increase their chance of being reinforced the next time (Skinner, 1961).

In negative reinforcement , an undesirable stimulus is removed to increase a behavior. For example, car manufacturers use the principles of negative reinforcement in their seatbelt systems, which go “beep, beep, beep” until you fasten your seatbelt. The annoying sound stops when you exhibit the desired behavior, increasing the likelihood that you will buckle up in the future. Negative reinforcement is also used frequently in horse training. Riders apply pressure—by pulling the reins or squeezing their legs—and then remove the pressure when the horse performs the desired behavior, such as turning or speeding up. The pressure is the negative stimulus that the horse wants to remove.

Link to Learning

Watch this clip from The Big Bang Theory to see Sheldon Cooper explain the commonly confused terms of negative reinforcement and punishment.

Many people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment in operant conditioning, but they are two very different mechanisms. Remember that reinforcement, even when it is negative, always increases a behavior. In contrast, punishment always decreases a behavior. In positive punishment, you add an undesirable stimulus to decrease a behavior. An example of positive punishment is scolding a student to get the student to stop texting in class. In this case, a stimulus (the reprimand) is added in order to decrease the behavior (texting in class). In negative punishment , you remove a pleasant stimulus to decrease a behavior. For example, when a child misbehaves, a parent can take away a favorite toy. In this case, a stimulus (the toy) is removed in order to decrease the behavior.

Punishment, especially when it is immediate, is one way to decrease undesirable behavior. For example, imagine your four year-old son, Brandon, hit his younger brother. You have Brandon write 50 times “I will not hit my brother” (positive punishment). Chances are he won’t repeat this behavior. While strategies like this are common today, in the past children were often subject to physical punishment, such as spanking. It’s important to be aware of some of the drawbacks in using physical punishment on children. First, punishment may teach fear. Brandon may become fearful of the hitting, but he also may become fearful of the person who delivered the punishment—you, his parent. Similarly, children who are punished by teachers may come to fear the teacher and try to avoid school (Gershoff et al., 2010). Consequently, most schools in the United States have banned corporal punishment. Second, punishment may cause children to become more aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior and delinquency (Gershoff, 2002). They see their parents resort to spanking when they become angry and frustrated, so, in turn, they may act out this same behavior when they become angry and frustrated. For example, because you spank Margot when you are angry with her for her misbehavior, she might start hitting her friends when they won’t share their toys.

While positive punishment can be effective in some cases, Skinner suggested that the use of punishment should be weighed against the possible negative effects. Today’s psychologists and parenting experts favor reinforcement over punishment—they recommend that you catch your child doing something good and reward her for it.

Make sure you understand the distinction between negative reinforcement and punishment in the following video:

You can view the transcript for “Learning: Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment” here (opens in new window) .

Still confused? Watch the following short clip for another example and explanation of positive and negative reinforcement as well as positive and negative punishment.

You can view the transcript for “Operant Conditioning” here (opens in new window) .

In his operant conditioning experiments, Skinner often used an approach called shaping. Instead of rewarding only the target behavior, in shaping , we reward successive approximations of a target behavior. Why is shaping needed? Remember that in order for reinforcement to work, the organism must first display the behavior. Shaping is needed because it is extremely unlikely that an organism will display anything but the simplest of behaviors spontaneously. In shaping, behaviors are broken down into many small, achievable steps. The specific steps used in the process are the following: Reinforce any response that resembles the desired behavior. Then reinforce the response that more closely resembles the desired behavior. You will no longer reinforce the previously reinforced response. Next, begin to reinforce the response that even more closely resembles the desired behavior. Continue to reinforce closer and closer approximations of the desired behavior. Finally, only reinforce the desired behavior.

Shaping is often used in teaching a complex behavior or chain of behaviors. Skinner used shaping to teach pigeons not only such relatively simple behaviors as pecking a disk in a Skinner box, but also many unusual and entertaining behaviors, such as turning in circles, walking in figure eights, and even playing ping pong; the technique is commonly used by animal trainers today. An important part of shaping is stimulus discrimination. Recall Pavlov’s dogs—he trained them to respond to the tone of a bell, and not to similar tones or sounds. This discrimination is also important in operant conditioning and in shaping behavior.

Here is a brief video of Skinner’s pigeons playing ping pong.

You can view the transcript for “BF Skinner Foundation – Pigeon Ping Pong Clip” here (opens in new window) .

It’s easy to see how shaping is effective in teaching behaviors to animals, but how does shaping work with humans? Let’s consider parents whose goal is to have their child learn to clean his room. They use shaping to help him master steps toward the goal. Instead of performing the entire task, they set up these steps and reinforce each step. First, he cleans up one toy. Second, he cleans up five toys. Third, he chooses whether to pick up ten toys or put his books and clothes away. Fourth, he cleans up everything except two toys. Finally, he cleans his entire room.

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

Rewards such as stickers, praise, money, toys, and more can be used to reinforce learning. Let’s go back to Skinner’s rats again. How did the rats learn to press the lever in the Skinner box? They were rewarded with food each time they pressed the lever. For animals, food would be an obvious reinforcer.

What would be a good reinforce for humans? For your daughter Sydney, it was the promise of a toy if she cleaned her room. How about Joaquin, the soccer player? If you gave Joaquin a piece of candy every time he made a goal, you would be using a primary reinforcer. Primary reinforcers are reinforcers that have innate reinforcing qualities. These kinds of reinforcers are not learned. Water, food, sleep, shelter, sex, and touch, among others, are primary reinforcers . Pleasure is also a primary reinforcer. Organisms do not lose their drive for these things. For most people, jumping in a cool lake on a very hot day would be reinforcing and the cool lake would be innately reinforcing—the water would cool the person off (a physical need), as well as provide pleasure.

A secondary reinforcer has no inherent value and only has reinforcing qualities when linked with a primary reinforcer. Praise, linked to affection, is one example of a secondary reinforcer, as when you called out “Great shot!” every time Joaquin made a goal. Another example, money, is only worth something when you can use it to buy other things—either things that satisfy basic needs (food, water, shelter—all primary reinforcers) or other secondary reinforcers. If you were on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and you had stacks of money, the money would not be useful if you could not spend it. What about the stickers on the behavior chart? They also are secondary reinforcers.

Sometimes, instead of stickers on a sticker chart, a token is used. Tokens, which are also secondary reinforcers, can then be traded in for rewards and prizes. Entire behavior management systems, known as token economies, are built around the use of these kinds of token reinforcers. Token economies have been found to be very effective at modifying behavior in a variety of settings such as schools, prisons, and mental hospitals. For example, a study by Cangi and Daly (2013) found that use of a token economy increased appropriate social behaviors and reduced inappropriate behaviors in a group of autistic school children. Autistic children tend to exhibit disruptive behaviors such as pinching and hitting. When the children in the study exhibited appropriate behavior (not hitting or pinching), they received a “quiet hands” token. When they hit or pinched, they lost a token. The children could then exchange specified amounts of tokens for minutes of playtime.

Everyday Connection: Behavior Modification in Children

Parents and teachers often use behavior modification to change a child’s behavior. Behavior modification uses the principles of operant conditioning to accomplish behavior change so that undesirable behaviors are switched for more socially acceptable ones. Some teachers and parents create a sticker chart, in which several behaviors are listed (Figure 1). Sticker charts are a form of token economies, as described in the text. Each time children perform the behavior, they get a sticker, and after a certain number of stickers, they get a prize, or reinforcer. The goal is to increase acceptable behaviors and decrease misbehavior. Remember, it is best to reinforce desired behaviors, rather than to use punishment. In the classroom, the teacher can reinforce a wide range of behaviors, from students raising their hands, to walking quietly in the hall, to turning in their homework. At home, parents might create a behavior chart that rewards children for things such as putting away toys, brushing their teeth, and helping with dinner. In order for behavior modification to be effective, the reinforcement needs to be connected with the behavior; the reinforcement must matter to the child and be done consistently.

A photograph shows a child placing stickers on a chart hanging on the wall.

Time-out is another popular technique used in behavior modification with children. It operates on the principle of negative punishment. When a child demonstrates an undesirable behavior, she is removed from the desirable activity at hand (Figure 2). For example, say that Sophia and her brother Mario are playing with building blocks. Sophia throws some blocks at her brother, so you give her a warning that she will go to time-out if she does it again. A few minutes later, she throws more blocks at Mario. You remove Sophia from the room for a few minutes. When she comes back, she doesn’t throw blocks.

There are several important points that you should know if you plan to implement time-out as a behavior modification technique. First, make sure the child is being removed from a desirable activity and placed in a less desirable location. If the activity is something undesirable for the child, this technique will backfire because it is more enjoyable for the child to be removed from the activity. Second, the length of the time-out is important. The general rule of thumb is one minute for each year of the child’s age. Sophia is five; therefore, she sits in a time-out for five minutes. Setting a timer helps children know how long they have to sit in time-out. Finally, as a caregiver, keep several guidelines in mind over the course of a time-out: remain calm when directing your child to time-out; ignore your child during time-out (because caregiver attention may reinforce misbehavior); and give the child a hug or a kind word when time-out is over.

Photograph A shows several children climbing on playground equipment. Photograph B shows a child sitting alone at a table looking at the playground.

Think It Over

Explain the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment, and provide several examples of each based on your own experiences.
Think of a behavior that you have that you would like to change. How could you use behavior modification, specifically positive reinforcement, to change your behavior? What is your positive reinforcer?

CC licensed content, Original

Modification and adaptation, addition of Big Bang Learning example. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Operant conditioning interactive. Authored by : Jessica Traylor for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

CC licensed content, Shared previously

Operant Conditioning. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/6-3-operant-conditioning . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

BF Skinner Foundation – Pigeon Ping Pong Clip. Provided by : bfskinnerfoundation. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGazyH6fQQ4 . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Learning: Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment. Authored by : ByPass Publishing. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkbuKomPXI . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Operant Conditioning. Authored by : Dr. Mindy Rutherford. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSHJbIJK9TI . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

implementation of a consequence in order to increase a behavior

adding a desirable stimulus to increase a behavior

implementation of a consequence in order to decrease a behavior

adding an undesirable stimulus to stop or decrease a behavior

taking away a pleasant stimulus to decrease or stop a behavior

rewarding successive approximations toward a target behavior

has innate reinforcing qualities (e.g., food, water, shelter, sex)

has no inherent value unto itself and only has reinforcing qualities when linked with something else (e.g., money, gold stars, poker chips)

Share This Book

All Access Pass
PLR Articles
PLR Courses
PLR Social Media

Grab Our Free eBook to Learn How to Grow Your Wellness Business Exponentially!

What is negative reinforcement (a definition), theory of negative reinforcement.

All-Access Pass - Wellness PLR Content Collection

Examples of Negative Reinforcement

Negative punishment vs. negative reinforcement.

Objective: Negative reinforcement aims to increase the likelihood of a behavior by removing or avoiding an aversive or unpleasant stimulus when the behavior occurs.
Process: In negative reinforcement, a behavior is strengthened because it leads to the removal or avoidance of something undesirable.
Example: A student studies hard to avoid failing a test. The aversive stimulus is the threat of failure, and the behavior of studying is reinforced by its removal.
Objective: Negative punishment, also known as punishment by removal, seeks to decrease the likelihood of a behavior by removing a desirable or positive stimulus when the behavior occurs.
Process: In negative punishment, a behavior is weakened because it results in the removal of something rewarding or pleasant.
Example: A child loses their video game privileges (a desirable stimulus) for misbehaving. The behavior that led to the punishment (misbehavior) is less likely to occur in the future.

Negative Reinforcement vs. Positive Reinforcement

Process: In negative reinforcement, a behavior is strengthened because it leads to the removal or avoidance of something undesirable. The behavior helps escape or avoid the aversive stimulus.
Example: If a person fastens their seat belt to stop the annoying seat belt reminder sound in their car, the removal of the aversive sound reinforces the behavior of wearing the seat belt.
Objective: Positive reinforcement aims to increase the likelihood of a behavior by adding a rewarding or pleasant stimulus when the behavior occurs.
Process: In positive reinforcement, a behavior is strengthened because it results in the addition of something enjoyable or desirable. The behavior is encouraged by the prospect of obtaining a positive stimulus.
Example: If a child receives a sticker for completing their homework, the addition of the sticker as a reward reinforces the behavior of doing homework.

The Negative Reinforcement Trap

Well-Being PLR Courses - Grow Your Business Fast

Negative Reinforcement in the Workplace

Negative reinforcement in the classroom, negative reinforcement and drug addiction.

Well-Being PLR Article Packages - Grow Your Business Fast

Articles Related to Negative Reinforcement

Mistakes: Definition, Examples, & How To Learn From Them
Mind Mapping: Definition & Examples in Psychology
Perfectionism: Definition, Examples, & Traits

Books Related to Negative Reinforcement

Reinforcements: How to Get People to Help You
NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT & TIME-OUT!: Two POSITIVE Strategies of Classroom Management
Breaking Negative Thinking Patterns: A Schema Therapy Self-Help and Support Book

Final Thoughts on Negative Reinforcement

Video: negative reinforcement.

Don't Forget to Grab Our Free eBook to Learn How to Grow Your Wellness Business Exponentially!

Gunter, P. L., & Coutinho, M. J. (1997). Negative reinforcement in classrooms: What we're beginning to learn. Teacher Education and Special Education , 20 (3), 249–264.
Iwata, B. A. (1987). Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis: An emerging technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 20 (4), 361–378.
Koob, G. F. (2013). Negative reinforcement in drug addiction: the darkness within. Current Opinion in Neurobiology , 23 (4), 559–563.
Magoon, M. A., & Critchfield, T. S. (2008). Concurrent schedules of positive and negative reinforcement: differential-impact and differential-outcomes hypothesis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 90 (1), 1–22.
Papageorgi, I. (2021). Positive and Negative Reinforcement and Punishment. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 6079–6081). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Perez, R. (2021). Investigating the effects of utilizing motivative augmentals that emphasize positive versus negative reinforcement . California State University, Fresno.
Staddon, J. E., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology , 54 (1), 115–144.
Happiness
Stress Management
Self-Confidence
Manifestation
All Articles...
All-Access Pass
PLR Content Packages
PLR Courses

Negative Reinforcement (Definition + Examples)

At first glance, “negative reinforcement” might sound uncomfortable or contradictory. Is there such a thing as negative reinforcement or positive punishment?

In the world of behaviorism, yes. Both of those terms exist. You might be surprised to learn that negative reinforcement actually encourages a behavior to happen again!

What is Negative Reinforcement?

Negative Reinforcement is when a stimulus is removed to increase a certain behavior. For example, if a young adult gets up early in the morning to avoid being last in the bathroom, they have increased a certain behavior to avoid the stimulus of waiting in the bathroom.

Punishments and reinforcements could be broken down into positive or negative categories. This doesn’t signify the outcome of the reinforcement; rather, “positive” or “negative” refers to whether a stimulus was added or removed as a response to a behavior. In the case of negative reinforcement, a stimulus is removed. This stimulus was probably burdensome or cumbersome, so removing the stimulus often feels like a relief.

Operant Conditioning

During the early 1900s, psychological experiments focused on understanding behavior, yielding notable works from psychologists Ivan Pavlov and B.F. Skinner, each establishing distinct theories – classical and operant conditioning , respectively.

Ivan Pavlov, an eminent Russian psychologist, is renowned for his pioneering research on classical conditioning , a learning process involving involuntary responses. His widely recognized experiments with dogs provide profound insights into associative learning, where a neutral stimulus (the sound of a bell) became associated with an unconditioned stimulus (food). The dogs eventually began to salivate (an involuntary response) merely at the sound of the bell, even without food, illustrating that behavior can be conditioned through association and reflex responses. Notably, classical conditioning underscores learning through association, primarily involving automatic, reflexive behaviors triggered by environmental stimuli.

Contrastingly, B.F. Skinner, arriving a few decades post-Pavlov, concentrated on operant conditioning, which pivots on voluntary behaviors and their consequences. Unlike Pavlov’s work, Skinner's experiments, often involving rats or pigeons, sought to understand how behavior can be shaped and modified by systematically applying rewards (reinforcements) or penalties (punishments).

His objective was to illustrate that behaviors can be manipulated by controlling their outcomes: positive outcomes (reinforcements) tend to increase the probability of a behavior's recurrence, while negative outcomes (punishments) typically decrease it. Skinner was particularly interested in observing how intentional actions, resulting from free will and control, can be predictably influenced by manipulating environmental factors.

In essence, while both psychologists investigated behavioral conditioning, Pavlov’s classical conditioning emphasized involuntary, reflexive behaviors triggered by external stimuli, whereas Skinner’s operant conditioning focused on deliberate behaviors shaped by orchestrated consequences. Both theories, although focusing on different types of behaviors, have substantially informed the understanding of learning and behavior modification, spotlighting how environments influence behaviors in varied contexts.

Examples of Negative Reinforcement in Psychology

One of the most famous yet ethically controversial examples of negative reinforcement emerges from a study in positive psychology conducted by Martin Seligman in the 1960s. Seligman observed an experiment involving dogs placed in harnesses. Some of these dogs were subjected to electric shocks; however, they could be halted if they moved to the other side of an apparatus. Thus, removing the unpleasant stimulus (the electric shock) encouraged the dogs to repeat the behavior (moving to the other side) in the future.

It's crucial to note that while this experiment offers insights into negative reinforcement, it raises significant ethical concerns. The use of electric shocks and the apparent distress caused to the animals involved starkly contrast to modern-day ethical standards for conducting experiments, particularly those involving living beings. Contemporary researchers prioritize minimizing harm and ensuring the welfare of animals used in experimental settings, guided by a comprehensive ethical framework that would prohibit replicating Seligman's original study in present times.

In the context of this experiment, there are additional underlying psychological principles beyond negative reinforcement, such as learned helplessness, which will be further discussed later in the article.

Here are some other examples of negative reinforcement that you may have observed or even experienced:

A teacher declares that there is no more assigned homework after their class has behaved well at an assembly.
Every time you go to the beach, you get sunburnt - unless you remember to put sunscreen beforehand.
You finish all of your work early to avoid rush-hour traffic.
Your lactose-intolerant friend orders a dairy-free ice cream so they do not experience a stomachache.
When your child screams loud enough about not wanting to take a bath, you give in, and the child doesn’t have to.

In each example, a stimulus is removed in response to a behavior. The next time the person (or animal) has the choice to do that behavior, they are more likely to do it because they know the negative stimulus may be removed again.

Continuous vs. Partial Negative Reinforcement

Expanding on the concept of continuous reinforcement, it's essential to underscore why this method, despite its efficacy, might be impractical or unfeasible in various situations. Continuous reinforcement entails rewarding every time a desired behavior is executed. Although this approach can rapidly establish and solidify a behavior, it is often impractical due to time, resources, and logistics constraints.

Firstly, continuous reinforcement may be resource-intensive. Rewarding a behavior each time it occurs demands a significant supply of reinforcements, whether they be treats, praise, or other rewards. This could be impractical or economically unviable in real-world scenarios, particularly in contexts like classroom settings or large-scale animal training.

Secondly, administering continuous reinforcement can be incredibly time-consuming and attention-demanding for the one providing the reinforcement. In environments where one individual is managing the behaviors of many, such as a teacher with a large class or a trainer with multiple animals, maintaining a consistent and immediate reward schedule for every instance of a desired behavior can become a logistic challenge.

Moreover, once a behavior is established through continuous reinforcement, it may become notably susceptible to extinction if the reinforcement ceases. If the reward is suddenly no longer provided, the learned behavior might quickly diminish or disappear.

While continuous reinforcement has its challenges and limitations, psychologists like B.F. Skinner has examined alternative reinforcement schedules , notably partial or intermittent reinforcement schedules. These schedules, which include:

Fixed-ratio: Reinforcement is provided after a specified number of responses.
Variable-ratio: Reinforcement is provided after an unpredictable number of responses, maintaining an average.
Fixed-interval: Reinforcement is provided for the first response after a specified time interval has elapsed.
Variable-interval: Reinforcement is provided for the first response after an unpredictable time interval, maintaining an average.

These schedules introduce an element of variability and unpredictability in reinforcement delivery, which can often be more manageable and similarly effective in maintaining established behaviors, and in some instances, even more resistant to extinction. Exploring these varied schedules allows researchers and practitioners to adapt reinforcement strategies to the practical and contextual demands of different learning and training environments.

Reinforcement Schedules

Fixed-ratio.

In educational psychology, a fixed-ratio schedule provides reinforcement after a set number of desired behaviors. For instance, a teacher might implement this by rewarding students with a "free homework pass" after displaying positive behavior at five assemblies consecutively. This approach can effectively motivate students due to its clarity and predictability: exhibit the desired behavior a specified number of times, and a reward will follow.

However, educators must choose a realistic and achievable ratio to keep students motivated and ensure that the reinforcement is valuable and equitable to all students, considering their diverse needs and abilities. This method provides a clear, straightforward incentive for positive behavior while requiring the mindful application to maintain engagement and fairness in the learning environment.

Variable-ratio

A variable-ratio schedule removes the stimulus in response to an inconsistent number of behaviors. Maybe the assignments are removed after four assemblies of good behavior. Next time, the homework is removed after six assemblies of good behavior. Next time, the homework is removed after two assemblies of good behavior.

Another example of this is the example with the bath mentioned earlier. Every now and again, a parent may be so tired of their child screaming that they take away the stimulus of giving them a dreaded bath. In most cases, this reinforcement is doled out randomly. Yet, the child is still more likely to try at least screaming so that the negative stimulus may be removed. Although negative reinforcement can encourage positive outcomes, being unintentional about reinforcement can also encourage a person (or animal) to encourage negative outcomes.

Fixed-interval

Fixed-interval schedules remove the stimulus in response to a behavior after a fixed interval. The snooze button is a great example of this. You typically have nine minutes to perform a behavior (getting up and turning off your alarm.) If you can perform this behavior, the stimulus (the sound of the alarm) is removed. If you do not perform this behavior, the stimulus remains.

Fixed-interval schedules can be effective, but they often encourage people to just perform the behavior right before the interval. Let’s say children are encouraged to help other students - if they are observed doing so, their homework will be removed on Friday. Every Friday, the teacher goes down the list of students and removes the stimulus from the students who performed the behavior. While some students will be encouraged to perform the behavior early in the week, many will “cram” that behavior into Thursday or Friday. If you are a procrastinator, this isn’t the best schedule for training yourself.

Variable-interval

The final reinforcement schedule is a variable-interval schedule. Instead of taking away homework every Friday for students who helped others throughout the week, the “schedule” is more sporadic. One week, the teacher may take away homework on Friday afternoon. The following week, they may not take it away at all. Next week, they may take it away on Tuesday for students who were observed helping a classmate in the past week.

This is another reinforcement schedule that keeps people on their toes. If they are motivated enough to have the stimulus removed, they are likely to complete the behavior more often. However, this type of conditioning takes time, as the person does not always know when they “should” be performing the behavior.

Is Negative Reinforcement Effective? Exploring Ethical and Long-Term Implications

Negative reinforcement can be a powerful tool to enhance or modify behavior by allowing an individual or an animal to “escape” an aversive stimulus or prevent it from occurring. Everyday actions, such as applying sunscreen to avoid sunburn or paying taxes to sidestep fines, exemplify negative reinforcement in practice – we undertake these actions to dodge undesired outcomes.

However, the efficiency and ethicality of negative reinforcement are multidimensional, varying broadly across situations, populations, and time frames. Consider the ethical aspects: using aversive stimuli, especially in vulnerable populations like children or animals, might raise concerns about welfare and emotional well-being. Moreover, negative reinforcement can sometimes encourage unintended behaviors, such as a child yelling to avoid eating vegetables, particularly if their avoidance behavior is consistently rewarded by conceding parents.

In some instances, the failure to appropriately implement negative reinforcement at initial stages might result in miscomprehensions about the possibility to “escaping” a negative stimulus, leading to variations in its effectiveness.

Long-Term Impacts: Unveiling "Learned Helplessness"

Reflecting on the dog experiment exposes negative reinforcement's potential perils, such as inducing learned helplessness. Dogs unable to escape the shock collar in early trials, irrespective of their actions, became disinclined to attempt desired behaviors due to this learned helplessness. Contrastingly, those who comprehended their ability to control the situation (and thus the removal of the negative stimulus) were more likely to engage in the desired behavior.

In educational or training contexts, prolonged reliance on negative reinforcement might stifle intrinsic motivation, creating individuals or animals that respond merely to avoid adverse outcomes rather than being propelled by internal drive or positive outcomes.

Alternatives to Negative Reinforcement: A Multifaceted Approach

Amidst efforts to navigate behavioral training, whether teaching a dog to sit or encouraging children to consume vegetables, a keen awareness of the stimuli being manipulated in response to behaviors is paramount. It's beneficial to explore diverse forms of operant conditioning, encompassing positive reinforcement and both positive and negative punishment, always ensuring ethical considerations are paramount.

Reddit user shoebox asked the DogTraining subreddit , "If negative reinforcement isn't the right strategy, how do you get your dog to stop behaviors?" The comment section contains ways to reinforce, punish, and prevent behaviors! The ensuing dialogue unveiled many methods to reinforce, punish, and preempt behaviors, underscoring the wealth of alternatives available beyond negative reinforcement.

In summary, negative reinforcement can be potent yet warrants judicious and ethical application, always with an eye toward minimizing any potential negative emotional or psychological impact, particularly in vulnerable populations or in scenarios where the establishment of trust and positive relationship dynamics are crucial.

Schedules of Reinforcement (Examples)
Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
Positive Reinforcement (Definition + Examples)
Variable Interval Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)
Fixed Ratio Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Classical Conditioning

Observational Learning

Latent Learning

Experiential Learning

The Little Albert Study

Bobo Doll Experiment

Spacing Effect

Von Restorff Effect

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

6.3 Operant Conditioning

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Define operant conditioning
Explain the difference between reinforcement and punishment
Distinguish between reinforcement schedules

The previous section of this chapter focused on the type of associative learning known as classical conditioning. Remember that in classical conditioning, something in the environment triggers a reflex automatically, and researchers train the organism to react to a different stimulus. Now we turn to the second type of associative learning, operant conditioning . In operant conditioning, organisms learn to associate a behavior and its consequence ( Table 6.1 ). A pleasant consequence makes that behavior more likely to be repeated in the future. For example, Spirit, a dolphin at the National Aquarium in Baltimore, does a flip in the air when her trainer blows a whistle. The consequence is that she gets a fish.

Psychologist B. F. Skinner saw that classical conditioning is limited to existing behaviors that are reflexively elicited, and it doesn’t account for new behaviors such as riding a bike. He proposed a theory about how such behaviors come about. Skinner believed that behavior is motivated by the consequences we receive for the behavior: the reinforcements and punishments. His idea that learning is the result of consequences is based on the law of effect, which was first proposed by psychologist Edward Thorndike . According to the law of effect , behaviors that are followed by consequences that are satisfying to the organism are more likely to be repeated, and behaviors that are followed by unpleasant consequences are less likely to be repeated (Thorndike, 1911). Essentially, if an organism does something that brings about a desired result, the organism is more likely to do it again. If an organism does something that does not bring about a desired result, the organism is less likely to do it again. An example of the law of effect is in employment. One of the reasons (and often the main reason) we show up for work is because we get paid to do so. If we stop getting paid, we will likely stop showing up—even if we love our job.

Working with Thorndike’s law of effect as his foundation, Skinner began conducting scientific experiments on animals (mainly rats and pigeons) to determine how organisms learn through operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938). He placed these animals inside an operant conditioning chamber, which has come to be known as a “Skinner box” ( Figure 6.10 ). A Skinner box contains a lever (for rats) or disk (for pigeons) that the animal can press or peck for a food reward via the dispenser. Speakers and lights can be associated with certain behaviors. A recorder counts the number of responses made by the animal.

Link to Learning

Watch this brief video to see Skinner's interview and a demonstration of operant conditioning of pigeons to learn more.

Reinforcement

The most effective way to teach a person or animal a new behavior is with positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement , a desirable stimulus is added to increase a behavior.

Many people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment in operant conditioning, but they are two very different mechanisms. Remember that reinforcement, even when it is negative, always increases a behavior. In contrast, punishment always decreases a behavior. In positive punishment , you add an undesirable stimulus to decrease a behavior. An example of positive punishment is scolding a student to get the student to stop texting in class. In this case, a stimulus (the reprimand) is added in order to decrease the behavior (texting in class). In negative punishment , you remove a pleasant stimulus to decrease behavior. For example, when a child misbehaves, a parent can take away a favorite toy. In this case, a stimulus (the toy) is removed in order to decrease the behavior.

Punishment, especially when it is immediate, is one way to decrease undesirable behavior. For example, imagine your five-year-old son, Brandon, runs out into the street to chase a ball. You have Brandon write 100 times “I will not run into the street" (positive punishment). Chances are he won’t repeat this behavior. While strategies like this are common today, in the past children were often subject to physical punishment, such as spanking. It’s important to be aware of some of the drawbacks in using physical punishment on children. First, punishment may teach fear. Brandon may become fearful of the street, but he also may become fearful of the person who delivered the punishment—you, his parent. Similarly, children who are punished by teachers may come to fear the teacher and try to avoid school (Gershoff et al., 2010). Consequently, most schools in the United States have banned corporal punishment. Second, punishment may cause children to become more aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior and delinquency (Gershoff, 2002). They see their parents resort to spanking when they become angry and frustrated, so, in turn, they may act out this same behavior when they become angry and frustrated. For example, if you spank your child when you are angry with them for their misbehavior, they might start hitting their friends when they won’t share their toys.

Reinforce any response that resembles the desired behavior.
Then reinforce the response that more closely resembles the desired behavior. You will no longer reinforce the previously reinforced response.
Next, begin to reinforce the response that even more closely resembles the desired behavior.
Continue to reinforce closer and closer approximations of the desired behavior.
Finally, only reinforce the desired behavior.

Watch this brief video of Skinner's pigeons playing ping pong to learn more.

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

What would be a good reinforcer for humans? For your child cleaning the room, it was the promise of a toy. How about Sydney, the soccer player? If you gave Sydney a piece of candy every time Sydney scored a goal, you would be using a primary reinforcer . Primary reinforcers are reinforcers that have innate reinforcing qualities. These kinds of reinforcers are not learned. Water, food, sleep, shelter, sex, and touch, among others, are primary reinforcers. Pleasure is also a primary reinforcer. Organisms do not lose their drive for these things. For most people, jumping in a cool lake on a very hot day would be reinforcing and the cool lake would be innately reinforcing—the water would cool the person off (a physical need), as well as provide pleasure.

A secondary reinforcer has no inherent value and only has reinforcing qualities when linked with a primary reinforcer. Praise, linked to affection, is one example of a secondary reinforcer, as when you called out “Great shot!” every time Sydney made a goal. Another example, money, is only worth something when you can use it to buy other things—either things that satisfy basic needs (food, water, shelter—all primary reinforcers) or other secondary reinforcers. If you were on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and you had stacks of money, the money would not be useful if you could not spend it. What about the stickers on the behavior chart? They also are secondary reinforcers.

Sometimes, instead of stickers on a sticker chart, a token is used. Tokens, which are also secondary reinforcers, can then be traded in for rewards and prizes. Entire behavior management systems, known as token economies, are built around the use of these kinds of token reinforcers. Token economies have been found to be very effective at modifying behavior in a variety of settings such as schools, prisons, and mental hospitals. For example, a study by Adibsereshki and Abkenar (2014) found that use of a token economy increased appropriate social behaviors and reduced inappropriate behaviors in a group of eight grade students. Similar studies show demonstrable gains on behavior and academic achievement for groups ranging from first grade to high school, and representing a wide array of abilities and disabilities. For example, during studies involving younger students, when children in the study exhibited appropriate behavior (not hitting or pinching), they received a “quiet hands” token. When they hit or pinched, they lost a token. The children could then exchange specified amounts of tokens for minutes of playtime.

Everyday Connection

Behavior modification in children.

Parents and teachers often use behavior modification to change a child’s behavior. Behavior modification uses the principles of operant conditioning to accomplish behavior change so that undesirable behaviors are switched for more socially acceptable ones. Some teachers and parents create a sticker chart, in which several behaviors are listed ( Figure 6.11 ). Sticker charts are a form of token economies, as described in the text. Each time children perform the behavior, they get a sticker, and after a certain number of stickers, they get a prize, or reinforcer. The goal is to increase acceptable behaviors and decrease misbehavior. Remember, it is best to reinforce desired behaviors, rather than to use punishment. In the classroom, the teacher can reinforce a wide range of behaviors, from students raising their hands, to walking quietly in the hall, to turning in their homework. At home, parents might create a behavior chart that rewards children for things such as putting away toys, brushing their teeth, and helping with dinner. In order for behavior modification to be effective, the reinforcement needs to be connected with the behavior; the reinforcement must matter to the child and be done consistently.

Time-out is another popular technique used in behavior modification with children. It operates on the principle of negative punishment. When a child demonstrates an undesirable behavior, they are removed from the desirable activity at hand ( Figure 6.12 ). For example, say that Sophia and her brother Mario are playing with building blocks. Sophia throws some blocks at her brother, so you give her a warning that she will go to time-out if she does it again. A few minutes later, she throws more blocks at Mario. You remove Sophia from the room for a few minutes. When she comes back, she doesn’t throw blocks.

Reinforcement Schedules

Remember, the best way to teach a person or animal a behavior is to use positive reinforcement. For example, Skinner used positive reinforcement to teach rats to press a lever in a Skinner box. At first, the rat might randomly hit the lever while exploring the box, and out would come a pellet of food. After eating the pellet, what do you think the hungry rat did next? It hit the lever again, and received another pellet of food. Each time the rat hit the lever, a pellet of food came out. When an organism receives a reinforcer each time it displays a behavior, it is called continuous reinforcement . This reinforcement schedule is the quickest way to teach someone a behavior, and it is especially effective in training a new behavior. Let’s look back at the dog that was learning to sit earlier in the chapter. Now, each time he sits, you give him a treat. Timing is important here: you will be most successful if you present the reinforcer immediately after he sits, so that he can make an association between the target behavior (sitting) and the consequence (getting a treat).

Watch this video clip of veterinarian Dr. Sophia Yin shaping a dog's behavior using the steps outlined above to learn more.

Once a behavior is trained, researchers and trainers often turn to another type of reinforcement schedule—partial reinforcement. In partial reinforcement , also referred to as intermittent reinforcement, the person or animal does not get reinforced every time they perform the desired behavior. There are several different types of partial reinforcement schedules ( Table 6.3 ). These schedules are described as either fixed or variable, and as either interval or ratio. Fixed refers to the number of responses between reinforcements, or the amount of time between reinforcements, which is set and unchanging. Variable refers to the number of responses or amount of time between reinforcements, which varies or changes. Interval means the schedule is based on the time between reinforcements, and ratio means the schedule is based on the number of responses between reinforcements.

Now let’s combine these four terms. A fixed interval reinforcement schedule is when behavior is rewarded after a set amount of time. For example, June undergoes major surgery in a hospital. During recovery, they are expected to experience pain and will require prescription medications for pain relief. June is given an IV drip with a patient-controlled painkiller. Their doctor sets a limit: one dose per hour. June pushes a button when pain becomes difficult, and they receive a dose of medication. Since the reward (pain relief) only occurs on a fixed interval, there is no point in exhibiting the behavior when it will not be rewarded.

With a variable interval reinforcement schedule , the person or animal gets the reinforcement based on varying amounts of time, which are unpredictable. Say that Manuel is the manager at a fast-food restaurant. Every once in a while someone from the quality control division comes to Manuel’s restaurant. If the restaurant is clean and the service is fast, everyone on that shift earns a $20 bonus. Manuel never knows when the quality control person will show up, so he always tries to keep the restaurant clean and ensures that his employees provide prompt and courteous service. His productivity regarding prompt service and keeping a clean restaurant are steady because he wants his crew to earn the bonus.

With a fixed ratio reinforcement schedule , there are a set number of responses that must occur before the behavior is rewarded. Carla sells glasses at an eyeglass store, and she earns a commission every time she sells a pair of glasses. She always tries to sell people more pairs of glasses, including prescription sunglasses or a backup pair, so she can increase her commission. She does not care if the person really needs the prescription sunglasses, Carla just wants her bonus. The quality of what Carla sells does not matter because her commission is not based on quality; it’s only based on the number of pairs sold. This distinction in the quality of performance can help determine which reinforcement method is most appropriate for a particular situation. Fixed ratios are better suited to optimize the quantity of output, whereas a fixed interval, in which the reward is not quantity based, can lead to a higher quality of output.

In a variable ratio reinforcement schedule , the number of responses needed for a reward varies. This is the most powerful partial reinforcement schedule. An example of the variable ratio reinforcement schedule is gambling. Imagine that Sarah—generally a smart, thrifty woman—visits Las Vegas for the first time. She is not a gambler, but out of curiosity she puts a quarter into the slot machine, and then another, and another. Nothing happens. Two dollars in quarters later, her curiosity is fading, and she is just about to quit. But then, the machine lights up, bells go off, and Sarah gets 50 quarters back. That’s more like it! Sarah gets back to inserting quarters with renewed interest, and a few minutes later she has used up all her gains and is $10 in the hole. Now might be a sensible time to quit. And yet, she keeps putting money into the slot machine because she never knows when the next reinforcement is coming. She keeps thinking that with the next quarter she could win $50, or $100, or even more. Because the reinforcement schedule in most types of gambling has a variable ratio schedule, people keep trying and hoping that the next time they will win big. This is one of the reasons that gambling is so addictive—and so resistant to extinction.

In operant conditioning, extinction of a reinforced behavior occurs at some point after reinforcement stops, and the speed at which this happens depends on the reinforcement schedule. In a variable ratio schedule, the point of extinction comes very slowly, as described above. But in the other reinforcement schedules, extinction may come quickly. For example, if June presses the button for the pain relief medication before the allotted time the doctor has approved, no medication is administered. They are on a fixed interval reinforcement schedule (dosed hourly), so extinction occurs quickly when reinforcement doesn’t come at the expected time. Among the reinforcement schedules, variable ratio is the most productive and the most resistant to extinction. Fixed interval is the least productive and the easiest to extinguish ( Figure 6.13 ).

Connect the Concepts

Gambling and the brain.

Skinner (1953) stated, “If the gambling establishment cannot persuade a patron to turn over money with no return, it may achieve the same effect by returning part of the patron's money on a variable-ratio schedule” (p. 397).

Skinner uses gambling as an example of the power of the variable-ratio reinforcement schedule for maintaining behavior even during long periods without any reinforcement. In fact, Skinner was so confident in his knowledge of gambling addiction that he even claimed he could turn a pigeon into a pathological gambler (“Skinner’s Utopia,” 1971). It is indeed true that variable-ratio schedules keep behavior quite persistent—just imagine the frequency of a child’s tantrums if a parent gives in even once to the behavior. The occasional reward makes it almost impossible to stop the behavior.

Recent research in rats has failed to support Skinner’s idea that training on variable-ratio schedules alone causes pathological gambling (Laskowski et al., 2019). However, other research suggests that gambling does seem to work on the brain in the same way as most addictive drugs, and so there may be some combination of brain chemistry and reinforcement schedule that could lead to problem gambling ( Figure 6.14 ). Specifically, modern research shows the connection between gambling and the activation of the reward centers of the brain that use the neurotransmitter (brain chemical) dopamine (Murch & Clark, 2016). Interestingly, gamblers don’t even have to win to experience the “rush” of dopamine in the brain. “Near misses,” or almost winning but not actually winning, also have been shown to increase activity in the ventral striatum and other brain reward centers that use dopamine (Chase & Clark, 2010). These brain effects are almost identical to those produced by addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin (Murch & Clark, 2016). Based on the neuroscientific evidence showing these similarities, the DSM-5 now considers gambling an addiction, while earlier versions of the DSM classified gambling as an impulse control disorder.

In addition to dopamine, gambling also appears to involve other neurotransmitters, including norepinephrine and serotonin (Potenza, 2013). Norepinephrine is secreted when a person feels stress, arousal, or thrill. It may be that pathological gamblers use gambling to increase their levels of this neurotransmitter. Deficiencies in serotonin might also contribute to compulsive behavior, including a gambling addiction (Potenza, 2013).

It may be that pathological gamblers’ brains are different than those of other people, and perhaps this difference may somehow have led to their gambling addiction, as these studies seem to suggest. However, it is very difficult to ascertain the cause because it is impossible to conduct a true experiment (it would be unethical to try to turn randomly assigned participants into problem gamblers). Therefore, it may be that causation actually moves in the opposite direction—perhaps the act of gambling somehow changes neurotransmitter levels in some gamblers’ brains. It also is possible that some overlooked factor, or confounding variable, played a role in both the gambling addiction and the differences in brain chemistry.

Cognition and Latent Learning

Strict behaviorists like Watson and Skinner focused exclusively on studying behavior rather than cognition (such as thoughts and expectations). In fact, Skinner was such a staunch believer that cognition didn't matter that his ideas were considered radical behaviorism . Skinner considered the mind a "black box"—something completely unknowable—and, therefore, something not to be studied. However, another behaviorist, Edward C. Tolman, had a different opinion. Tolman’s experiments with rats demonstrated that organisms can learn even if they do not receive immediate reinforcement (Tolman & Honzik, 1930; Tolman, Ritchie, & Kalish, 1946). This finding was in conflict with the prevailing idea at the time that reinforcement must be immediate in order for learning to occur, thus suggesting a cognitive aspect to learning.

In the experiments, Tolman placed hungry rats in a maze with no reward for finding their way through it. He also studied a comparison group that was rewarded with food at the end of the maze. As the unreinforced rats explored the maze, they developed a cognitive map : a mental picture of the layout of the maze ( Figure 6.15 ). After 10 sessions in the maze without reinforcement, food was placed in a goal box at the end of the maze. As soon as the rats became aware of the food, they were able to find their way through the maze quickly, just as quickly as the comparison group, which had been rewarded with food all along. This is known as latent learning : learning that occurs but is not observable in behavior until there is a reason to demonstrate it.

Latent learning also occurs in humans. Children may learn by watching the actions of their parents but only demonstrate it at a later date, when the learned material is needed. For example, suppose that Ravi’s dad drives him to school every day. In this way, Ravi learns the route from his house to his school, but he’s never driven there himself, so he has not had a chance to demonstrate that he’s learned the way. One morning Ravi’s dad has to leave early for a meeting, so he can’t drive Ravi to school. Instead, Ravi follows the same route on his bike that his dad would have taken in the car. This demonstrates latent learning. Ravi had learned the route to school, but had no need to demonstrate this knowledge earlier.

This Place Is Like a Maze

Have you ever gotten lost in a building and couldn’t find your way back out? While that can be frustrating, you’re not alone. At one time or another we’ve all gotten lost in places like a museum, hospital, or university library. Whenever we go someplace new, we build a mental representation—or cognitive map—of the location, as Tolman’s rats built a cognitive map of their maze. However, some buildings are confusing because they include many areas that look alike or have short lines of sight. Because of this, it’s often difficult to predict what’s around a corner or decide whether to turn left or right to get out of a building. Psychologist Laura Carlson (2010) suggests that what we place in our cognitive map can impact our success in navigating through the environment. She suggests that paying attention to specific features upon entering a building, such as a picture on the wall, a fountain, a statue, or an escalator, adds information to our cognitive map that can be used later to help find our way out of the building.

Watch this video about Carlson's studies on cognitive maps and navigation in buildings to learn more.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Psychology 2e
Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/6-3-operant-conditioning

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.2 Changing Behavior Through Reinforcement and Punishment: Operant Conditioning

Learning objectives.

Outline the principles of operant conditioning.
Explain how learning can be shaped through the use of reinforcement schedules and secondary reinforcers.

In classical conditioning the organism learns to associate new stimuli with natural, biological responses such as salivation or fear. The organism does not learn something new but rather begins to perform in an existing behavior in the presence of a new signal. Operant conditioning , on the other hand, is learning that occurs based on the consequences of behavior and can involve the learning of new actions. Operant conditioning occurs when a dog rolls over on command because it has been praised for doing so in the past, when a schoolroom bully threatens his classmates because doing so allows him to get his way, and when a child gets good grades because her parents threaten to punish her if she doesn’t. In operant conditioning the organism learns from the consequences of its own actions.

How Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behavior: The Research of Thorndike and Skinner

Psychologist Edward L. Thorndike (1874–1949) was the first scientist to systematically study operant conditioning. In his research Thorndike (1898) observed cats who had been placed in a “puzzle box” from which they tried to escape ( Note 7.21 “Video Clip: Thorndike’s Puzzle Box” ). At first the cats scratched, bit, and swatted haphazardly, without any idea of how to get out. But eventually, and accidentally, they pressed the lever that opened the door and exited to their prize, a scrap of fish. The next time the cat was constrained within the box it attempted fewer of the ineffective responses before carrying out the successful escape, and after several trials the cat learned to almost immediately make the correct response.

Observing these changes in the cats’ behavior led Thorndike to develop his law of effect , the principle that responses that create a typically pleasant outcome in a particular situation are more likely to occur again in a similar situation, whereas responses that produce a typically unpleasant outcome are less likely to occur again in the situation (Thorndike, 1911). The essence of the law of effect is that successful responses, because they are pleasurable, are “stamped in” by experience and thus occur more frequently. Unsuccessful responses, which produce unpleasant experiences, are “stamped out” and subsequently occur less frequently.

Video Clip: Thorndike’s Puzzle Box

(click to see video)

When Thorndike placed his cats in a puzzle box, he found that they learned to engage in the important escape behavior faster after each trial. Thorndike described the learning that follows reinforcement in terms of the law of effect.

The influential behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) expanded on Thorndike’s ideas to develop a more complete set of principles to explain operant conditioning. Skinner created specially designed environments known as operant chambers (usually called Skinner boxes ) to systemically study learning. A Skinner box (operant chamber) is a structure that is big enough to fit a rodent or bird and that contains a bar or key that the organism can press or peck to release food or water. It also contains a device to record the animal’s responses .

The most basic of Skinner’s experiments was quite similar to Thorndike’s research with cats. A rat placed in the chamber reacted as one might expect, scurrying about the box and sniffing and clawing at the floor and walls. Eventually the rat chanced upon a lever, which it pressed to release pellets of food. The next time around, the rat took a little less time to press the lever, and on successive trials, the time it took to press the lever became shorter and shorter. Soon the rat was pressing the lever as fast as it could eat the food that appeared. As predicted by the law of effect, the rat had learned to repeat the action that brought about the food and cease the actions that did not.

Skinner studied, in detail, how animals changed their behavior through reinforcement and punishment, and he developed terms that explained the processes of operant learning ( Table 7.1 “How Positive and Negative Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behavior” ). Skinner used the term reinforcer to refer to any event that strengthens or increases the likelihood of a behavior and the term punisher to refer to any event that weakens or decreases the likelihood of a behavior . And he used the terms positive and negative to refer to whether a reinforcement was presented or removed, respectively. Thus positive reinforcement strengthens a response by presenting something pleasant after the response and negative reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing or removing something unpleasant . For example, giving a child praise for completing his homework represents positive reinforcement, whereas taking aspirin to reduced the pain of a headache represents negative reinforcement. In both cases, the reinforcement makes it more likely that behavior will occur again in the future.

Figure 7.6 Rat in a Skinner Box

B. F. Skinner used a Skinner box to study operant learning. The box contains a bar or key that the organism can press to receive food and water, and a device that records the organism’s responses.

Andreas1 – Skinner box – CC BY-SA 3.0.

Table 7.1 How Positive and Negative Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behavior

Reinforcement, either positive or negative, works by increasing the likelihood of a behavior. Punishment, on the other hand, refers to any event that weakens or reduces the likelihood of a behavior . Positive punishment weakens a response by presenting something unpleasant after the response , whereas negative punishment weakens a response by reducing or removing something pleasant . A child who is grounded after fighting with a sibling (positive punishment) or who loses out on the opportunity to go to recess after getting a poor grade (negative punishment) is less likely to repeat these behaviors.

Although the distinction between reinforcement (which increases behavior) and punishment (which decreases it) is usually clear, in some cases it is difficult to determine whether a reinforcer is positive or negative. On a hot day a cool breeze could be seen as a positive reinforcer (because it brings in cool air) or a negative reinforcer (because it removes hot air). In other cases, reinforcement can be both positive and negative. One may smoke a cigarette both because it brings pleasure (positive reinforcement) and because it eliminates the craving for nicotine (negative reinforcement).

It is also important to note that reinforcement and punishment are not simply opposites. The use of positive reinforcement in changing behavior is almost always more effective than using punishment. This is because positive reinforcement makes the person or animal feel better, helping create a positive relationship with the person providing the reinforcement. Types of positive reinforcement that are effective in everyday life include verbal praise or approval, the awarding of status or prestige, and direct financial payment. Punishment, on the other hand, is more likely to create only temporary changes in behavior because it is based on coercion and typically creates a negative and adversarial relationship with the person providing the reinforcement. When the person who provides the punishment leaves the situation, the unwanted behavior is likely to return.

Creating Complex Behaviors Through Operant Conditioning

Perhaps you remember watching a movie or being at a show in which an animal—maybe a dog, a horse, or a dolphin—did some pretty amazing things. The trainer gave a command and the dolphin swam to the bottom of the pool, picked up a ring on its nose, jumped out of the water through a hoop in the air, dived again to the bottom of the pool, picked up another ring, and then took both of the rings to the trainer at the edge of the pool. The animal was trained to do the trick, and the principles of operant conditioning were used to train it. But these complex behaviors are a far cry from the simple stimulus-response relationships that we have considered thus far. How can reinforcement be used to create complex behaviors such as these?

One way to expand the use of operant learning is to modify the schedule on which the reinforcement is applied. To this point we have only discussed a continuous reinforcement schedule , in which the desired response is reinforced every time it occurs ; whenever the dog rolls over, for instance, it gets a biscuit. Continuous reinforcement results in relatively fast learning but also rapid extinction of the desired behavior once the reinforcer disappears. The problem is that because the organism is used to receiving the reinforcement after every behavior, the responder may give up quickly when it doesn’t appear.

Most real-world reinforcers are not continuous; they occur on a partial (or intermittent) reinforcement schedule — a schedule in which the responses are sometimes reinforced, and sometimes not . In comparison to continuous reinforcement, partial reinforcement schedules lead to slower initial learning, but they also lead to greater resistance to extinction. Because the reinforcement does not appear after every behavior, it takes longer for the learner to determine that the reward is no longer coming, and thus extinction is slower. The four types of partial reinforcement schedules are summarized in Table 7.2 “Reinforcement Schedules” .

Table 7.2 Reinforcement Schedules

Partial reinforcement schedules are determined by whether the reinforcement is presented on the basis of the time that elapses between reinforcement (interval) or on the basis of the number of responses that the organism engages in (ratio), and by whether the reinforcement occurs on a regular (fixed) or unpredictable (variable) schedule. In a fixed-interval schedule , reinforcement occurs for the first response made after a specific amount of time has passed . For instance, on a one-minute fixed-interval schedule the animal receives a reinforcement every minute, assuming it engages in the behavior at least once during the minute. As you can see in Figure 7.7 “Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained Under Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules” , animals under fixed-interval schedules tend to slow down their responding immediately after the reinforcement but then increase the behavior again as the time of the next reinforcement gets closer. (Most students study for exams the same way.) In a variable-interval schedule , the reinforcers appear on an interval schedule, but the timing is varied around the average interval, making the actual appearance of the reinforcer unpredictable . An example might be checking your e-mail: You are reinforced by receiving messages that come, on average, say every 30 minutes, but the reinforcement occurs only at random times. Interval reinforcement schedules tend to produce slow and steady rates of responding.

Figure 7.7 Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained Under Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules

Schedules based on the number of responses (ratio types) induce greater response rate than do schedules based on elapsed time (interval types). Also, unpredictable schedules (variable types) produce stronger responses than do predictable schedules (fixed types).

Adapted from Kassin, S. (2003). Essentials of psychology . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Essentials of Psychology Prentice Hall Companion Website: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_kassin_essentials_1/15/3933/1006917.cw/index.html .

In a fixed-ratio schedule , a behavior is reinforced after a specific number of responses . For instance, a rat’s behavior may be reinforced after it has pressed a key 20 times, or a salesperson may receive a bonus after she has sold 10 products. As you can see in Figure 7.7 “Examples of Response Patterns by Animals Trained Under Different Partial Reinforcement Schedules” , once the organism has learned to act in accordance with the fixed-reinforcement schedule, it will pause only briefly when reinforcement occurs before returning to a high level of responsiveness. A variable-ratio schedule provides reinforcers after a specific but average number of responses . Winning money from slot machines or on a lottery ticket are examples of reinforcement that occur on a variable-ratio schedule. For instance, a slot machine may be programmed to provide a win every 20 times the user pulls the handle, on average. As you can see in Figure 7.8 “Slot Machine” , ratio schedules tend to produce high rates of responding because reinforcement increases as the number of responses increase.

Figure 7.8 Slot Machine

Slot machines are examples of a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule.

Jeff Kubina – Slot Machine – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Complex behaviors are also created through shaping , the process of guiding an organism’s behavior to the desired outcome through the use of successive approximation to a final desired behavior . Skinner made extensive use of this procedure in his boxes. For instance, he could train a rat to press a bar two times to receive food, by first providing food when the animal moved near the bar. Then when that behavior had been learned he would begin to provide food only when the rat touched the bar. Further shaping limited the reinforcement to only when the rat pressed the bar, to when it pressed the bar and touched it a second time, and finally, to only when it pressed the bar twice. Although it can take a long time, in this way operant conditioning can create chains of behaviors that are reinforced only when they are completed.

Reinforcing animals if they correctly discriminate between similar stimuli allows scientists to test the animals’ ability to learn, and the discriminations that they can make are sometimes quite remarkable. Pigeons have been trained to distinguish between images of Charlie Brown and the other Peanuts characters (Cerella, 1980), and between different styles of music and art (Porter & Neuringer, 1984; Watanabe, Sakamoto & Wakita, 1995).

Behaviors can also be trained through the use of secondary reinforcers . Whereas a primary reinforcer includes stimuli that are naturally preferred or enjoyed by the organism, such as food, water, and relief from pain , a secondary reinforcer (sometimes called conditioned reinforcer ) is a neutral event that has become associated with a primary reinforcer through classical conditioning . An example of a secondary reinforcer would be the whistle given by an animal trainer, which has been associated over time with the primary reinforcer, food. An example of an everyday secondary reinforcer is money. We enjoy having money, not so much for the stimulus itself, but rather for the primary reinforcers (the things that money can buy) with which it is associated.

Key Takeaways

Edward Thorndike developed the law of effect: the principle that responses that create a typically pleasant outcome in a particular situation are more likely to occur again in a similar situation, whereas responses that produce a typically unpleasant outcome are less likely to occur again in the situation.
B. F. Skinner expanded on Thorndike’s ideas to develop a set of principles to explain operant conditioning.
Positive reinforcement strengthens a response by presenting something that is typically pleasant after the response, whereas negative reinforcement strengthens a response by reducing or removing something that is typically unpleasant.
Positive punishment weakens a response by presenting something typically unpleasant after the response, whereas negative punishment weakens a response by reducing or removing something that is typically pleasant.
Reinforcement may be either partial or continuous. Partial reinforcement schedules are determined by whether the reinforcement is presented on the basis of the time that elapses between reinforcements (interval) or on the basis of the number of responses that the organism engages in (ratio), and by whether the reinforcement occurs on a regular (fixed) or unpredictable (variable) schedule.
Complex behaviors may be created through shaping, the process of guiding an organism’s behavior to the desired outcome through the use of successive approximation to a final desired behavior.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

Give an example from daily life of each of the following: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment.
Consider the reinforcement techniques that you might use to train a dog to catch and retrieve a Frisbee that you throw to it.

Watch the following two videos from current television shows. Can you determine which learning procedures are being demonstrated?

The Office : http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/11/the-office-altoid- experiment-1499823
The Big Bang Theory : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA96Fba-WHk

Cerella, J. (1980). The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recognition, 12 , 1–6.

Porter, D., & Neuringer, A. (1984). Music discriminations by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10 (2), 138–148;

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York, NY: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/details/animalintelligen00thor

Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., & Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons’ discrimination of painting by Monet and Picasso. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63 (2), 165–174.

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.9: Reinforcement and Punishment

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 59956

Learning Objectives

Explain the difference between reinforcement and punishment (including positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment)
Define shaping
Differentiate between primary and secondary reinforcers

Reinforcement

The most effective way to teach a person or animal a new behavior is with positive reinforcement. In positive reinforcement , a desirable stimulus is added to increase a behavior.

Link to Learning

Watch this clip from The Big Bang Theory to see Sheldon Cooper explain the commonly confused terms of negative reinforcement and punishment.

Make sure you understand the distinction between negative reinforcement and punishment in the following video:

You can view the transcript for “Learning: Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment” here (opens in new window) .

Still confused? Watch the following short clip for another example and explanation of positive and negative reinforcement as well as positive and negative punishment.

You can view the transcript for “Operant Conditioning” here (opens in new window) .

Query $\PageIndex{1}$

Query $\PageIndex{2}$

Query $\PageIndex{3}$

Query $\PageIndex{4}$

Query $\PageIndex{5}$

Query $\PageIndex{6}$

Here is a brief video of Skinner’s pigeons playing ping pong.

You can view the transcript for “BF Skinner Foundation – Pigeon Ping Pong Clip” here (opens in new window) .

Query $\PageIndex{7}$

Query $\PageIndex{8}$

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

Everyday Connection: Behavior Modification in Children

A child placing stickers on a chart hanging on her wall.

Photograph A shows several children climbing on playground equipment. Photograph B shows a child in time-out, sitting alone at a table looking at the playground.

Query $\PageIndex{9}$

Query $\PageIndex{10}$

Think It Over

Explain the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment, and provide several examples of each based on your own experiences.
Think of a behavior that you have that you would like to change. How could you use behavior modification, specifically positive reinforcement, to change your behavior? What is your positive reinforcer?

negative punishment: taking away a pleasant stimulus to decrease or stop a behavior

negative reinforcement: taking away an undesirable stimulus to increase a behavior

positive punishment: adding an undesirable stimulus to stop or decrease a behavior

positive reinforcement: adding a desirable stimulus to increase a behavior

primary reinforcer: has innate reinforcing qualities (e.g., food, water, shelter, sex)

punishment: implementation of a consequence in order to decrease a behavior

reinforcement: implementation of a consequence in order to increase a behavior

secondary reinforcer: has no inherent value unto itself and only has reinforcing qualities when linked with something else (e.g., money, gold stars, poker chips)

Contributors and Attributions

CC licensed content, Original

Modification and adaptation, addition of Big Bang Learning example. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Operant Conditioning. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:r470BCFb@7/Operant-Conditioning . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11629/latest/ .
BF Skinner Foundation - Pigeon Ping Pong Clip. Provided by : bfskinnerfoundation. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGazyH6fQQ4 . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Learning: Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment. Authored by : ByPass Publishing. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkbuKomPXI . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Operant Conditioning. Authored by : Dr. Mindy Rutherford. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSHJbIJK9TI . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

Alzheimer's & Dementia
Asthma & Allergies
Atopic Dermatitis
Breast Cancer
Cardiovascular Health
Environment & Sustainability
Exercise & Fitness
Headache & Migraine
Health Equity
HIV & AIDS
Human Biology
Men's Health
Mental Health
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Parkinson's Disease
Psoriatic Arthritis
Sexual Health
Ulcerative Colitis
Women's Health
Nutrition & Fitness
Vitamins & Supplements
At-Home Testing
Men’s Health
Women’s Health
Latest News
Medical Myths
Honest Nutrition
Through My Eyes
New Normal Health
2023 in medicine
Why exercise is key to living a long and healthy life
What do we know about the gut microbiome in IBD?
My podcast changed me
Can 'biological race' explain disparities in health?
Why Parkinson's research is zooming in on the gut
Health Hubs
Find a Doctor
BMI Calculators and Charts
Blood Pressure Chart: Ranges and Guide
Breast Cancer: Self-Examination Guide
Sleep Calculator
RA Myths vs Facts
Type 2 Diabetes: Managing Blood Sugar
Ankylosing Spondylitis Pain: Fact or Fiction
Our Editorial Process
Content Integrity
Conscious Language
Health Conditions
Health Products

What is negative reinforcement?

Negative reinforcement encourages specific behaviors by removing or avoiding negative consequences or stimuli. It is different than punishment, which aims to discourage a specific behavior.

Negative reinforcement has become a popular way of encouraging good behavior at school. Keep reading to learn more about how it works and how it differs from positive reinforcement and punishment.

How does negative reinforcement work?

Negative reinforcement is the encouragement of certain behaviors by removing or avoiding a negative outcome or stimuli. People typically use this technique to help children learn good patterns of behavior, but it can also play a role in training animals and pets.

Negative reinforcement is part of operant conditioning, which was a theory of learning that B. F. Skinner developed in the 1930s.

Operant conditioning centers on the idea of reinforcement. Reinforcing behaviors makes them more likely to occur again. Behaviors without reinforcement, according to operant conditioning, will not reoccur.

Negative reinforcement allows the person or animal to remove the negative stimuli in exchange for a reward.

Skinner demonstrated his operant conditioning theory by observing animals in what researchers came to call a Skinner box . The box may, for example, contain a lever or button that an animal can press for food or water. However, if the animal tries to get the food by simply pushing the button, it will receive a small but uncomfortable electric shock.

Instead, the animal may need to press a second lever to stop the electric current and allow it to get the food without the electric shock. Over time, the animal will learn to stop the current immediately using the lever.

The same idea can apply in everyday life. For example, if an alarm sounds when a person starts driving without putting their seat belt on, they will quickly learn to put their seat belt on when they get in the car to avoid the unpleasant alarm sound.

How is it different than punishment?

It is easy to mistake negative reinforcement for a type of punishment, but there is a fundamental difference between the two. In a sense, they are, in fact, opposites. People design punishments to discourage a particular behavior or type of behavior, but they use negative reinforcement to encourage it.

A punishment could involve removing a reward or applying an unpleasant stimulus. For example, giving an animal a mild electric shock for pressing a lever would discourage this behavior. An example in humans could be grounding a child for breaking a rule.

It is unclear whether negative reinforcements or punishments are more effective in changing behavior patterns. However, some criticisms of using punishments include:

Certain behaviors may return when the punishment no longer occurs.
Punishments can create anger and other negative feelings, potentially leading to worse problems.
A fear of punishment could develop into a fear of other situations relating to the punishment, such as a fear of going to school if that is where punishment occurs.
Punishments focus on stopping behaviors rather than teaching good behaviors in their place.

Deciding whether to use punishments or negative reinforcement will depend on the desired change in behavior and the child. For example, using harsh punishments on a child who is prone to anger may worsen the existing issues.

Positive reinforcement

Positive reinforcement involves the use of pleasant stimuli to encourage certain behaviors. It is the opposite face of reinforcement within operant conditioning because it encourages behaviors through reward rather than the removal of something unpleasant.

For example, a researcher may set up a Skinner box so that pressing a lever provides the animal with food. At first, the animal may touch the lever accidentally. But over time, it will learn that there will be a reward for pressing the lever.

An example in children would be giving them money for doing chores around the house.

Some children may respond better to positive reinforcement, whereas others will respond better to negative reinforcement. It is possible to use both forms of reinforcement to influence behavior.

In the classroom

People have long applied operant conditioning to help children and teenagers learn in school. The theory is appealing because it is a simple and effective method of encouraging changes in behavior.

Reinforcement is most effective as a consequence of a behavior. For example, getting a low grade on an exam is a negative reinforcer that encourages pupils to study.

The reinforcement must also be appealing to the pupil. Some children might not care about getting low grades, so they may continue to avoid studying.

It is important to work with pupils to understand what motivates them as individuals before deciding on the best approach for reinforcement. Often, different factors will motivate each pupil. It can, therefore, be helpful to use multiple reward and reinforcement systems. The best methods, or schedules of reinforcement, might also differ depending on the situation.

Continuous reinforcement is useful for teaching a new behavior. It involves using the reinforcer every time a pupil displays the behavior. Once pupils have formed a strong association between the reinforcer and the behavior, it can become less frequent.

Other approaches include fixed interval schedules, where the reinforcer occurs after a certain number of repetitions of the behavior.

Variable interval schedules are particularly useful for reinforcing slow, continual behaviors, for example, teaching children to remain in their seats or talk quietly in the hallway.

Negative reinforcement aims to increase specific behaviors by removing negative consequences or stimuli.

It is part of the operant conditioning theory of learning. This theory also includes positive reinforcement, which increases behaviors through rewards.

Punishments are different because they involve either removing a reward or using an unpleasant outcome to discourage behaviors.

Negative reinforcement can help encourage good behavior in children and teenagers at school, but its effectiveness will depend on the individual.

Last medically reviewed on February 4, 2020

Pediatrics / Children's Health
Psychology / Psychiatry

How we reviewed this article:

B. F. Skinner. (n.d.). https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/b-f-skinner
Hulac, D., et al . (2016). Using variable interval reinforcement schedules to support students in the classroom: An introduction with illustrative examples. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1132273.pdf
Larriba-Quest, K. (2017). Reinforcement in the classroom. https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/pages/reinforcement-in-the-classroom
McLeod, S. (2018). Skinner — operant conditioning. https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
Skinner box. (n.d.). https://psychology.uiowa.edu/comparative-cognition-laboratory/glossary/skinner-box
Sprouls, K., et al . (2015). Is positive feedback a forgotten classroom practice? Findings and implications for at-risk students. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarup_Mathur/publication/273178297_Is_Positive_Feedback_a_Forgotten_Classroom_Practice_Findings_and_Implications_for_At-Risk_Students/links/5581da9308ae6cf036c16f7e.pdf

Share this article

Latest news

Are plant-based meat substitutes really better for the heart than meat options?
High seafood diets linked to exposure to 'forever chemicals,' study finds
Experimental drug could reduce levels of ‘bad’ blood fats to lower heart disease risk
Could swapping beef for fish like sardines help prevent early death?
Cancer vaccine with immunotherapy shrinks liver tumors, trial shows

Related Coverage

Piaget's stages of development is a theory about how children learn and gain skills as they grow up, from birth to adulthood. Learn more.

Parenting or caring for a child with ADHD can be both challenging and rewarding. In this article, we give tips on how to encourage positive behaviors…

Psychotherapy can help people with various psychological conditions, including stress, phobias, and bipolar disorder. Learn more about the options…

This article discusses the psychology behind learned helplessness — a state in which a person feels unable to change a stressful situation, even when…

Conduct disorder is a mental health condition that affects children. It is characterized by antisocial, hostile, and violent behavior. Learn more.

Psychologily

Unlocking the Power of Negative Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning

Negative reinforcement and operant conditioning are two concepts that are commonly used in psychology to explain how behavior is learned and maintained. Negative reinforcement is a type of reinforcement that strengthens a response or behavior by removing or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus. This means that when an unpleasant stimulus is removed following a behavior, it is more likely to be repeated in the future.

Operant conditioning , on the other hand, is a type of learning in which behavior is modified by its consequences. In operant conditioning, behavior is either reinforced or punished, depending on whether it leads to a desirable or undesirable outcome. Reinforcement refers to increasing the likelihood of a behavior occurring again. In contrast, punishment refers to decreasing the probability of a behavior occurring again in the future.

Negative reinforcement and operant conditioning have been studied extensively in psychology and are effective in modifying behavior. For example, a child who is rewarded for completing their homework is more likely to continue doing so in the future, while a child who is punished for misbehaving is less likely to repeat that behavior. Understanding these concepts can be helpful in various settings, from parenting to education to business management.

Understanding Operant Conditioning

Definition and basics.

Operant conditioning is a type of learning where behavior is shaped by the consequences that follow it. In other words, if a desirable result follows a behavior, it is more likely to be repeated in the future. If an undesirable consequence follows a behavior, it is less likely to be repeated.

B.F. Skinner first described operant conditioning. Skinner believed that behavior is shaped by its consequences. Skinner called the implications of behavior “reinforcers” and “punishers.” Reinforcers increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated, while punishers decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated.

Types of Operant Conditioning

There are two types of operant conditioning: positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement involves adding something desirable to increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. For example, if a child gets a piece of candy every time they clean their room, they are more likely to clean their room in the future.

Negative reinforcement involves taking away something undesirable to increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. For example, if a person takes aspirin to relieve a headache, they are more likely to take aspirin in the future if they get a headache again.

It’s important to note that negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. Punishment involves adding something undesirable to decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. For example, if a child gets a spanking every time they misbehave, they are less likely to misbehave in the future.

Exploring Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement is operant conditioning that removes an unpleasant or uncomfortable stimulus in response to a desired behavior. This method aims to increase the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. This section will explore the basics of negative reinforcement and provide real-life examples to help you better understand this concept.

Negative reinforcement involves removing a negative stimulus in response to a desired behavior. This can be done in various ways, such as stopping a loud noise when a child puts on their headphones or taking away a chore when a teenager completes their homework. In both cases, the unpleasant stimulus (noise or chore) is removed in response to a desired behavior (wearing headphones or completing homework).

It is important to note that negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. Punishment involves adding an unpleasant stimulus to an undesired behavior, while negative reinforcement involves removing an unpleasant stimulus in response to a desired behavior.

Negative reinforcement can reinforce many behaviors, from simple tasks like completing chores to more complex behaviors like studying regularly. By removing an unpleasant stimulus, negative reinforcement can motivate individuals to continue engaging in a desired behavior.

Real-Life Examples

Here are some real-life examples of negative reinforcement:

A child stops crying when their parent picks them up: The unpleasant stimulus (crying) is removed when the desired behavior (being picked up) occurs.
A dog stops barking when its owner gives it a treat: The unpleasant stimulus (barking) is removed when the desired behavior (being quiet) occurs.
A student stops procrastinating when they receive praise from their teacher: The unpleasant stimulus (procrastination) is removed when the desired behavior (completing work on time) occurs.

Negative reinforcement can be a powerful tool for shaping behavior. Individuals are more likely to engage in desired behaviors by removing an unpleasant stimulus. However, it is essential to use negative reinforcement appropriately and avoid using punishment as a form of reinforcement.

Differences Between Negative Reinforcement and Punishment

When it comes to operant conditioning, two terms that are often confused are negative reinforcement and punishment. While both involve the removal of something unpleasant, they have different effects on behavior.

Negative reinforcement involves removing an unpleasant stimulus after a desired behavior is displayed. This encourages the behavior to be repeated in the future. For example, if a child cleans their room to avoid being scolded by their parents, removing the scolding is a negative reinforcement.

Punishment, on the other hand, involves the application of an unpleasant stimulus after an undesired behavior is displayed. This discourages the behavior from being repeated in the future. For example, if a child is spanked for misbehaving, the spanking is a punishment.

One key difference between negative reinforcement and punishment is their effect on behavior. Negative reinforcement increases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated, while punishment decreases the probability of a behavior being repeated.

Another difference is the emotional response that each can elicit. Negative reinforcement can be seen as a reward, as it involves the removal of something unpleasant. Punishment, on the other hand, can be seen as a form of aversive control, which can lead to negative emotions such as fear and anxiety.

It’s important to note that negative reinforcement and punishment can be positive or negative. Positive negative reinforcement involves adding something pleasant, while negative negative reinforcement involves the removal of something unpleasant. Positive punishment consists of adding something unpleasant, while negative punishment involves the removal of something satisfying.

Applications of Negative Reinforcement in Daily Life

Negative reinforcement is a powerful tool in shaping behavior and is used in many aspects of daily life. Here are some examples of how negative reinforcement is used:

In driving, a car’s beeping sound when the seatbelt is not fastened is an example of negative reinforcement. The beeping sound is an aversive stimulus that is removed when the seatbelt is fastened, thus reinforcing the desired behavior of wearing the seatbelt.
In education, teachers often use negative reinforcement to encourage good behavior. For example, a teacher might remove a student’s detention for good behavior, thus reinforcing the desired behavior of following the rules.
In parenting, negative reinforcement often encourages children to behave well. For example, a parent might take away a child’s T.V. privileges for misbehaving, thus reinforcing the desired behavior of good behavior.
In the workplace, negative reinforcement is often used to encourage good performance. For example, a manager might remove an employee’s extra workload for meeting a deadline, thus reinforcing the desired behavior of meeting deadlines.
In fitness, negative reinforcement often encourages people to exercise regularly. For example, a person might feel guilty for skipping a workout, thus reinforcing the desired behavior of exercising regularly.

Negative Reinforcement in Classroom Settings

As educators, we strive to create a positive and productive learning environment for our students. One way to achieve this is using negative reinforcement, operant conditioning, which involves removing an unpleasant stimulus to increase the likelihood of a desired behavior. Here are some examples of how negative reinforcement can be used in classroom settings:

Seat Belts: Imagine a student who frequently gets out of their seat during class. By requiring the student to wear a seat belt attached to their chair, they will be less likely to get up and wander around the classroom. Removing the seat belt when the student stays in their seat reinforces the desired behavior of remaining seated.
Homework Excuses: If a student consistently forgets to turn in their homework, a teacher could require the student to bring in their completed assignment for the next week. If the student remembers to turn in their homework, the requirement is removed, and the desired behavior of turning in homework is reinforced.
Noise Reduction: A teacher could use negative reinforcement in a noisy classroom to encourage quiet behavior. For example, a teacher could turn off the classroom lights when the noise level gets too high. Once the students quiet, the lights can be turned back on, reinforcing the desired quiet behavior.

Incorporating negative reinforcement into classroom management can effectively encourage positive behaviors and discourage negative ones. Removing an unpleasant stimulus can increase the likelihood of a desired behavior and create a more productive learning environment for our students.

Negative Reinforcement in Workplace Settings

Negative reinforcement in the workplace is a technique that involves removing an unpleasant stimulus immediately after a desired behavior is exhibited. This technique encourages a specific behavior to be repeated in the future. Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment, but the two are different. Punishment involves adding an unpleasant stimulus to decrease the likelihood of a behavior occurring again.

An example of negative reinforcement in the workplace is when an employee is given a break after completing a task. By removing the stress of the task, the employee is encouraged to complete the task again in the future. Another example is when a manager stops micromanaging an employee who has consistently met their targets. By removing the unpleasant experience of being micromanaged, the employee is more likely to continue meeting their targets.

It is important to note that negative reinforcement should not be used excessively or inappropriately. If an employee is constantly being subjected to unpleasant experiences, they may become demotivated and disengaged. Negative reinforcement should be used sparingly and only when necessary.

Impacts and Effects of Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement can have both positive and negative impacts on behavior. On the positive side, negative reinforcement can be an effective way to increase desired behaviors. For example, if a student is rewarded with the removal of a difficult task after completing their homework, they are more likely to complete their homework in the future.

However, negative reinforcement can also have negative impacts on behavior. It can lead to avoidance behaviors, where individuals avoid situations they associate with negative reinforcement. This can limit their exposure to new experiences and opportunities for learning and growth.

Negative reinforcement can also lead to the development of dependency on the removal of the aversive stimulus. For example, suppose a person depends on taking pain medication to relieve their chronic pain. In that case, they may become less motivated to seek alternative treatments or engage in activities that could help alleviate their pain.

It is important to note that the effectiveness of negative reinforcement can also depend on individual differences. Some individuals may be more sensitive to aversive stimuli and may be more likely to develop avoidance behaviors or become dependent on the removal of the aversive stimulus.

Critiques and Controversies of Negative Reinforcement

While negative reinforcement is a widely accepted concept in operant conditioning, it is not without its criticisms and controversies. Here are some of the main points of debate:

Ethical concerns

One of the main criticisms of negative reinforcement is that it can involve aversive stimuli, such as electric shocks or loud noises, to motivate behavior. This can raise ethical concerns, mainly when used on animals or vulnerable populations such as children. Some argue that using positive reinforcement, such as rewards or praise, is a more humane and effective way to shape behavior.

Confusion with punishment

Another point of controversy is the confusion between negative reinforcement and punishment. While negative reinforcement involves the removal of an aversive stimulus to increase behavior, punishment consists of introducing an aversive stimulus to decrease behavior. This confusion can lead to misunderstandings and misapplications of operant conditioning principles.

Overemphasis on behavior

Critics also argue that negative reinforcement places too much emphasis on behavior, without considering the underlying thoughts and emotions that drive behavior. This can lead to a narrow and simplistic understanding of human psychology and may overlook important factors such as motivation, cognition, and emotion.

Lack of individualization

Finally, some argue that negative reinforcement, like other operant conditioning techniques, can be too standardized and inflexible, failing to account for individual differences in learning style, temperament, and motivation. This can lead to ineffective or harmful outcomes, mainly when applied to complex or sensitive behaviors.

Future of Negative Reinforcement and Operant Conditioning

As we learn more about the human mind and behavior, we will likely discover new and innovative ways to apply negative reinforcement and operant conditioning. One area where we may see significant growth is using technology to enhance these techniques.

For example, virtual reality (VR) technology could create immersive environments that allow individuals to practice and reinforce desired behaviors. In addition, wearable devices could monitor behavior and provide immediate feedback to individuals, helping them better understand the consequences of their actions.

Education is another area where negative reinforcement and operant conditioning may be applied in the future. By using these techniques to reinforce desired behaviors and discourage negative ones, educators could create more effective learning environments and help students achieve their full potential.

However, it is essential to note that while negative reinforcement and operant conditioning can be effective tools for behavior modification, they must be used responsibly and ethically. It is vital that individuals are not subjected to undue stress or harm and that their autonomy and dignity are always respected.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment.

Negative reinforcement and punishment are two different concepts in operant conditioning. Negative reinforcement is a method of increasing the likelihood of a behavior being repeated by removing an unpleasant stimulus when that behavior is exhibited. Punishment, on the other hand, is a method of decreasing the likelihood of a behavior being repeated by adding an unpleasant stimulus when that behavior is exhibited.

What are some examples of negative reinforcement in operant conditioning?

An example of negative reinforcement in operant conditioning is when a child cleans their room to avoid being scolded by their parents. Another example is when an employee completes their work to avoid being reprimanded by their boss. In both cases, the unpleasant stimulus (scolding or reprimanding) is removed when the desired behavior (cleaning the room or completing the work) is exhibited.

How does negative reinforcement work in operant conditioning?

Negative reinforcement works by removing an unpleasant stimulus when a desired behavior is exhibited. This increases the likelihood of that behavior being repeated in the future. The removal of the unpleasant stimulus serves as a reward for exhibiting the desired behavior.

What are some methods of reinforcement used in operant conditioning?

In addition to negative reinforcement, there are other methods of reinforcement used in operant conditioning. Positive reinforcement involves adding a pleasant stimulus when a desired behavior is exhibited. Continuous reinforcement involves reinforcing a behavior every time it is exhibited. Partial reinforcement involves reinforcing a behavior only some of the time.

What is an example of operant conditioning and negative punishment?

An example of operant conditioning and negative punishment is when a child loses their T.V. privileges for misbehaving. The removal of the pleasant stimulus (T.V.) serves as a punishment for the undesired behavior (misbehaving), which decreases the likelihood of that behavior being repeated in the future.

What is the definition of negative reinforcement in psychology?

Negative reinforcement is a method of increasing the likelihood of a behavior being repeated by removing an unpleasant stimulus when that behavior is exhibited. It is a concept in operant conditioning, a theory developed by B.F. Skinner that focuses on the relationship between behavior and its consequences.

Motivating Operations and Negative Reinforcement

Timothy l. edwards.

1 School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, 3240 New Zealand

Alan Poling

2 Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI USA

The motivating operations concept has improved the precision of our approach to analyzing behavior; it serves as a framework for classifying events that alter the reinforcing and punishing effectiveness of other events. Nevertheless, some aspects of the concept are seriously flawed, thereby limiting its utility. We contend in this article that the emphasis it places on the onset of some stimuli (putative motivating operations) making their offset a reinforcer in the absence of a learning history (i.e., in the case of unconditioned motivating operations), or because of such a history (i.e., in the case of reflexive conditioned motivating operations), is of no value in predicting or controlling behavior. It is unfortunate that this pseudo-analysis has been widely accepted, which has drawn attention away from actual motivating operations that are relevant to negative reinforcement, and led to conceptually flawed explanations of challenging human behaviors that are escape-maintained. When used appropriately, the motivating operations concept can help to clarify the conditions under which a stimulus change (in particular, stimulus termination) will function as a negative reinforcer. From both a theoretical and a practical perspective, rethinking the application of the motivating operations concept to negative reinforcement is advantageous. Herein, we explore the implications of doing so with the aim of encouraging relevant research and improving the practice of applied behavior analysis.

Motivating operations (MOs) are a class of environmental events that alter the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of other events. For instance, prolonged exposure to the sun can increase the punishing effectiveness of putting something in contact with the affected skin and the reinforcing effectiveness of removing anything in contact with the affected area. Changes in stimulus control characteristically mediate such effects (Edwards, Lotfizadeh, & Poling, 2019a , 2019b ; Poling, Lotfizadeh, & Edwards, 2020 ). For example, you fall asleep on your belly by your pool, awaken with a severe sunburn, and go inside. A boisterous friend, who often affectionately slaps your back in greeting, rings your doorbell. You open the door, then step away from your friend and immediately tell her about your sunburned back. Stepping away and describing your sunburn are avoidance responses that occur because 1) your unprotected skin was exposed to sunlight for a sufficient period to be burned (i.e., an MO was in effect), and 2) your friend (a historically relevant stimulus) was present. Because such joint control of behavior by MOs and antecedent stimuli is ubiquitous, we have suggested that MOs should be defined as “operations that modulate the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of particular kinds of events and the control of behavior by antecedent stimuli historically relevant to those events” (Edwards et al., 2019b , p. 57), which differs substantially from the definition proposed by Michael and his colleagues (e.g., Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003 ) in what we herein term the “current” conceptualization of MOs. In both the current conceptualization and ours, “establishing operations” (EOs) increase the effectiveness of reinforcers and “abolishing operations” (AOs) decrease it.

In addition to redefining MOs, we proposed that the subtypes of conditioned MOs delineated by Michael and his associates are problematic in several regards. We will not repeat the basis for that contention, nor our response to critiques of our position (Edwards et al., 2019b ). Rather, in this article we consider the adequacy of the current conception of MOs as it relates to negative reinforcement. While dissecting the MO concept for our recent reconceptualization (Edwards et al., 2019a ), we became aware of serious issues associated with its handling of negative reinforcement. Further investigation of these issues and writing of the present article was prompted by Petursdottir’s (2019) comments on our proposed reconceptualization. In the process of examining these issues, we came to realize that they have a major influence on how behavior analysts conduct functional analyses and address negatively reinforced behavior in applied settings. We also reached the unavoidable conclusion that Michael’s handling of them is fundamentally inadequate, despite the well-recognized value of his work and the related work of other behavior analysts who support the current conceptualization of MOs (see, e.g., Laraway, Snycerski, Olson, Becker, & Poling, 2014 ; Michael & Miguel, 2019 ). Our goal is not to disparage his seminal work, but rather to call attention to aspects of it that can, and should, be improved.

Michael ( 1975 ) and others (e.g., Baron & Galizio, 2005 ; Iwata, 2006 ) have argued that the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement (and, by extension, between positive and negative punishment) is not always clear, a point with which we agree. They also argue that it is not useful, and here we disagree. Distinguishing between positive and negative reinforcement focuses on the kind of stimulus change, adding something to the environment or taking something away, that strengthens behavior. If nothing else, the distinction is a useful heuristic that helps students understand that different kinds of stimulus changes can serve as reinforcers (or punishers).

Behavior analysts have used various terms to refer to the stimuli involved in negative reinforcement, often in inconsistent and potentially confusing fashion. Skinner ( 1953 ) provided the following definition of the negative reinforcer: “we define the negative reinforcer (an aversive stimulus) as any stimulus the withdrawal of which strengthens behavior” (p. 185, emphasis in original). This definition is straightforward and unambiguous. But he also used the term “negative reinforcer” to refer to stimuli whose presentation weakens behavior. Many contemporary behavior analysts would refer to such stimuli as positive punishers, maintaining the convention that reinforcers strengthen and punishers weaken the responses that produce them. Poling, Carr, and LeBlanc ( 2002 ) define positive punishment as “a procedure (or process) in which the presentation of a stimulus after a behavior weakens (e.g., decreases the likelihood of) that behavior in the future” (p. 271). They define negative reinforcement as “a procedure (or process) in which the removal or postponement of a stimulus after a behavior strengthens (e.g., increases the likelihood of) that behavior in the future” (p. 271). Each definition specifies a response-produced change in the environment and the subsequent behavioral effect of that change. Moreover, by including stimulus postponement as a change in the environment, the definition of negative reinforcement incorporates unsignaled avoidance. Consistent with these definitions, rather than applying the term “negative reinforcer” to the stimulus that is removed in an instance of negative reinforcement, we apply it to the removal of the stimulus (i.e., it refers to the stimulus change rather than to the stimulus) herein.

In many cases, if the offset of a stimulus functions as a negative reinforcer, the onset of that same stimulus will function as a positive punisher, and vice versa. Likewise, if the onset of a stimulus functions as a positive reinforcer, its offset will often function as a negative punisher, and vice versa. But such symmetrical functions do not always occur. It is important to ascertain the behavioral functions of stimuli in the situation of concern and to describe those functions unambiguously. Saying, for example, that removal of a punisher strengthens behavior tempts confusion; clarity is served by restricting the term “punisher” to stimulus changes that weaken behavior and “reinforcer” to stimulus changes that strengthen it.

There is a long tradition in behavior analysis of using the term “aversive stimuli” to refer to stimuli that are avoided or terminated in avoidance and escape procedures, respectively, and stimuli that are presented dependent upon a response in punishment procedures (e.g., Azrin & Holz, 1966 ; Hineline, 1984 ; Skinner, 1953 ). There is no major problem if “aversive stimulus” is used in a strictly functional sense: the onset of an aversive stimulus functions as a positive punisher and the offset of an aversive stimulus functions as a negative reinforcer. Although these effects are typically symmetrical, as noted previously, whether either effect is evident depends on a variety of factors, and one cannot safely assume that a stimulus whose offset serves as a negative reinforcer in one situation will serve as a positive punisher when presented in another. Terms like “aversive stimulus” suggest that the behavioral effects of stimuli are fixed and invariant, which is clearly not the case. These shortcomings notwithstanding, “aversive stimulus” is a well-established term that is unlikely to fall from favor.

Michael’s Early Analysis of MOs and Negative Reinforcement

In Michael’s ( 1982 ) original reintroduction of the MO (then termed “establishing operation” [EO]) concept, he focused on distinguishing between discriminative and reinforcer-effectiveness-altering (i.e., motivational) functions of stimuli. Michael argued that a stimulus whose offset would function as a reinforcer (e.g., shock offset) should not be classified as a discriminative stimulus because discriminative stimuli must be correlated with the differential availability of reinforcement. He contended that, because termination of the stimulus would not function as a reinforcer if the stimulus were not present, it fails to meet the definition of a discriminative stimulus. He concluded that it is better to classify such a stimulus as an MO because the offset of the stimulus only functions as a reinforcer when the stimulus is present.

We suspect that Michael was attempting to square his analysis of motivation with Skinner’s analysis. For example, Skinner ( 1953 ) wrote:

When we present an aversive stimulus, any behavior which has previously been conditioned by the withdrawal of the stimulus immediately follows, and the possibility of conditioning other behavior is immediately provided. The presentation of the aversive stimulus therefore resembles a sudden increase in deprivation (Chapter IX), but since deprivation and satiation differ in many respects from the presentation or removal of an aversive stimulus, it is advisable to consider the two kinds of operations separately. We study aversive behavior in accordance with our definition: by presenting an aversive stimulus, we create the possibility of reinforcing a response by withdrawing the stimulus. (p. 172)

Michael’s conception of MOs as they relate to stimulus changes that sustain escape responding is consistent with Skinner’s analysis, as summarized in the foregoing quote. Nonetheless, the conceptualization is fundamentally flawed, as we explain.

MOs and Negative Reinforcement: Logical Issues

For something to be terminated, it must first be presented. Inherent in Michael’s ( 1982 ) argument that MOs include presentations of stimuli whose termination functions as negative reinforcement is the assumption that it is meaningful to talk about terminating something that is not present. In a relevant example, Michael stated, “. . . unless the shock is on, shock termination is not behaviorally functional as a form of reinforcement” (p. 151). This is analogous to a structural engineer arguing that for a building to fall down, it must first be built, and that some special terminology is required to describe the relationship between these two events so that we do not get confused about buildings that were never built falling down. This is clearly foolishness.

If one’s goal is predicting and (potentially) controlling behavior, the real issue is: “How can we know whether the offset of a given stimulus will increase the probability of (or otherwise strengthen) responses that produce this effect?” If this behavioral function were a fixed characteristic of the stimuli of interest, then a simple cataloging of events that had this function could provide a basis for answering this question. We know, for example, that extremely high-intensity stimuli of many kinds, such as loud sounds, bright lights, and contact with very hot and very cold surfaces, typically do so. But, depending on the current state of the organism, termination of such stimuli can serve as negative reinforcers, negative punishers, or neither. Such diversity in function is even more pronounced with lower-intensity stimuli. For example, if an audio device is programmed to play Wagner’s Götterdämmerung , in some situations one of us would respond to turn the device on and the other would respond to turn it off. Sometimes, neither of us would do either. Saying that the onset of the music is an MO in one of these situations tells us nothing about the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to sustain escape responding, or to predict the one of us for whom it would have this function.

Furthermore, as discussed by Edwards et al. ( 2019b ), the termination of the relevant stimulus (e.g., music) will only ever occur when the stimulus is present and, therefore, it could be argued that this stimulus meets the definition of a discriminative stimulus (i.e., the response of interest is more likely to occur in the presence of that stimulus than in its absence because, historically, the reinforcing consequence was available only in the presence of that stimulus). We would not argue that conceptualizing such a stimulus as a discriminative stimulus is of theoretical or practical value. 1 But the simple fact that it can be so conceptualized helps to demonstrate the logical issues associated with Michael’s ( 1982 ) original conceptual work. If characterizing the presentation of negative reinforcers as MOs or as S D s actually clarified their function, perhaps either or both characterizations could be justified, but we gain nothing new from either analysis, aside from a reminder that, for a stimulus to be terminated, it must be presented.

In response to Michael’s ( 1993a ) detailed exposition of the MO, in which he repeated his prior (i.e., Michael, 1982 ) ideas about the onset of a stimulus (which he termed “painful stimulation,” p. 195) serving as an EO that increases the reinforcing value of its offset, Hesse ( 1993 ) remarked that such a characterization was “an apparent redundancy in terms” (p. 216). Michael ( 1993b ) replied:

A small point, but one that I am not satisfied with, is my statement that some punishing stimuli [i.e., stimuli that sustain escape responding] function as their own EOs. Hesse refers to this as “an apparent redundancy in terms,” and I agree. I'm not sure how to deal with this issue, and have simply postponed a more careful treatment. (p. 229)

It does not appear that Michael or other theorists returned to this issue and, aside from Hesse’s comment, Michael’s ( 1982 ) original analysis has gone unchallenged.

If we continue to adopt Michael’s ( 1982 ) approach to describing the relationship between MOs and negative reinforcement, we are also obliged to consider a parallel relationship between MOs and negative punishment. That is, according to Michael’s reasoning, the presentation of a reinforcer is an EO that establishes its own offset as a punisher. On this point, Hesse ( 1993 ) pointed out that, “For stimulus removal or withdrawal, we need specify only the reinforcement EO because withdrawal or removal of that reinforcer produces the behavior decrease we call punishment, and it is that EO that ‘establishes’ withdrawal or removal as an effective consequence” (p. 216). We agree with Hesse’s reasoning and argue that the MO is relevant to negative punishment in the same way that it is relevant to negative reinforcement; the concept is useful in helping us determine the conditions under which termination of a stimulus will function as negative punishment. Although we focus in particular on negative reinforcement in the present analysis, most points that we make are also directly relevant to the analysis of negative punishment.

Returning to the issue of negative reinforcement, following Hesse’s reasoning, the EO responsible for establishing the termination of a stimulus as a negative reinforcer is the only MO that we need to specify. The same EOs that increase the punishing effectiveness of the presentation of a stimulus will often (but not inevitably) increase the reinforcing effectiveness of the offset of the same stimulus. For example, sleep deprivation may increase the punishing effectiveness of the illumination of a bright light and increase the reinforcing effectiveness of extinguishing the same bright light. Construing the presentation of the stimulus (illumination of the light) as the EO distracts us from the real EO (sleep deprivation).

MOs and Negative Reinforcers: Effects of Misclassification

The (mis)application of MOs to negative reinforcers is present in most detailed descriptions of the MO concept. In a recently revised book that serves as a reference for many applied behavior analysts, the following description appears: “Painful stimulation is an EO that increases the effectiveness of pain reduction as a reinforcer and evokes all behavior that has been reinforced by pain reduction” (Michael & Miguel, 2019 , p. 374). In addition to perpetuating the notion that MOs include stimuli whose offsets function as negative reinforcers, this quotation includes the term “painful,” which Michael (e.g., 1993a ) and others (e.g., Carbone, Morgenstern, Zecchin-Tirri, & Kolberg, 2010 ) have used when discussing this issue. This term is problematic because “painful” is not functionally defined (or defined at all). Moreover, explaining an instance of escape responding by referring to pain is circular reasoning. 2

The MO concept is a valuable addition to our analytical toolbox because it provides a framework for discussing environmental events that alter the reinforcing and punishing effectiveness of other events. We most commonly speak of MOs that increase the reinforcing effectiveness of stimulus presentations (i.e., positive reinforcement). For example, we speak of exercise and exposure to high temperature increasing the reinforcing effectiveness of the stimulus change from water-absent to water-present. These same MOs can also increase the punishing effectiveness of the removal of the same stimuli (i.e., negative punishment). For example, if you have been working on fences in the hot sun all afternoon (the MO), a successful request for water from a nearby farmhouse would be positively reinforced, and spilling the only canteen of water that you brought with you would be negatively punished.

MOs can also increase the punishing effectiveness of stimulus presentations (i.e., positive punishment). For example, getting a sinus infection (which causes a headache, as indicated by self-report and collateral behaviors) can increase the punishing effectiveness of loud music. In addition, the same EO that increases the punishing effectiveness of a stimulus’ presentation will in general increase the reinforcing effectiveness of the removal of the same stimulus (i.e., negative reinforcement). After getting the headache, locating the volume knob on your friend’s stereo, which is loudly playing your favorite piece of music, “Flight of the Valkyries,” is reinforced by the removal of the music. This final point is key to the present discussion. The same stimulus change, from music-present to music-absent, functions as a negative punisher under some circumstances (e.g., prior to getting the headache) and a negative reinforcer under other circumstances (e.g., after getting the headache). We do not need the MO concept to tell us that the volume must be up before it can be turned down (this is a logical requirement), but we do need the MO concept to help us to understand how the termination of music can have different functions under different circumstances (i.e., when the organism is in different states).

Negative reinforcers are a dynamic class of stimuli, or to be more precise, stimulus changes. The members of this class for a given individual will change across time. MOs are events that can move stimuli across the class boundary and/or increase or decrease the reinforcing effectiveness of the stimuli within the class. That is, as a result of MOs, stimulus changes can become more or less effective negative reinforcers or cease to function as negative reinforcers altogether. The MO concept is valuable because it prompts us to take these events and their effects into account when attempting to predict and change behavior. It is unfortunate that the MO concept, as currently applied to negative reinforcement, draws our attention away from the part of the analysis that is incomplete without the MO concept.

A hypothetical example may serve to further illustrate how the misapplication of MOs to negative reinforcement can turn attention away from changes in the environment that can alter reinforcer effectiveness. You and a friend are fishing and sharing a bottle of scotch. The fish aren’t biting and you end up drinking most of the bottle before deciding to stagger back to the lake house. When packing up your gear, you get a fishhook in your finger but don’t notice it until your friend tells you that you are bleeding. The entry of the fishhook into your finger did not function as a punisher for whatever behavior brought it about and, until your friend brought it to your attention, its removal would not have functioned as a negative reinforcer. In this case, the onset of the stimulus (hook entering hand) did not lead to the occurrence of responses that historically had removed hooks (or produced similar effects), hence it would be tempting to assert that neither negative reinforcement nor MOs were at play. In actuality, imbibing large quantities of scotch was an AO that decreased the punishing effectiveness of the fishhook entering the finger and decreased the reinforcing effectiveness of its removal.

The main points here are that, by applying an MO analysis where it is not needed, our attention is drawn away from the part of the analysis that is incomplete without the MO concept: what events alter the functions of putative negative reinforcers? In addition, with the current conceptualization, we are invited to make the grave error of assuming , rather than analyzing , the functions of these stimuli and the environmental events that modulate these functions. This misapplication of the MO concept has serious implications for how we conceptualize negative reinforcement in applied settings.

MOs, Negative Reinforcement, and Applied Behavior Analysis

A search for “escape-maintained behavior” produces more than 600 results in Google Scholar. Researchers and practitioners often identify escape (i.e., negative reinforcement) as one of the functions of problem behavior and implement a variety of interventions, including escape extinction combined with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, to reduce the problem behavior. In Hanley, Iwata, and McCord’s ( 2003 ) review of functional analysis procedures and outcomes, they found that 89.2% of the studies meeting inclusion criteria included a negative reinforcement condition (commonly referred to as an “escape” or “demand” condition) in the functional analysis. Of all studies, 34.2% produced results suggesting that the targeted problem behavior was escape-maintained.

The current MO conceptualization as it relates to negative reinforcement has directly informed the language and, we fear, the procedures associated with functional analyses of problem behavior. For example, in the “demand” condition, the presentation of a task of some sort is conceptualized as an EO (which establishes task removal as a reinforcer). We hope that, in light of the points we have raised, the reader is able to identify why we are concerned about this conceptualization as it is applied to functional analyses, but we will take this opportunity to restate our main points in this context.

The MO concept, applied in this way, takes attention away from operations that might influence the punishing effectiveness of the presentation of the stimuli associated with the specific “demand” and the reinforcing effectiveness of their removal, which is where the MO concept has unique analytical value. In addition, there is an inherent assumption in the current analysis that the removal of task demands functions as a negative reinforcer. Otherwise, their presentation could not possibly establish their removal as a reinforcer. This is not a safe assumption and we fear that, as a result of the current MO conceptualization, the demand condition in functional analyses has been misconstrued as a true test of the “escape” function without adequate evidence that the termination of the relevant stimulus functions as a negative reinforcer.

We are not the first to call attention to this issue. Roscoe, Rooker, Pence, and Longworth ( 2009 ) noted that, “altering antecedent variables associated with the demand context can alter the motivating operation for escape-maintained problem behavior” (p. 819). It is unfortunate that the misapplication of the MO concept to negative reinforcement has given Roscoe et al. and other behavior analysts a serious challenge when it comes to dissecting this issue and has impeded clear analysis of the demand condition in functional analysis procedures in general. “Antecedent variables” do not alter MOs, as suggested in this quotation. Instead, the antecedent variables may include MOs (among other manipulations) that influence the reinforcing effectiveness of demand removal.

Langthorne, McGill, and Oliver ( 2014 ) reviewed the literature relevant to negatively reinforced problem behavior with the intention of clarifying the importance of MOs in such behaviors. They explored many factors that are relevant to negatively reinforced behavior, including sleep deprivation and menses, but these factors were described as “predisposing the person’s behavior to be influenced by specific motivational operations” (p. 107), rather than as MOs that alter the effectiveness of negative reinforcers. In addition, consistent with the currently accepted conceptualization, stimuli whose offset would presumably function as a negative reinforcer were referred to as MOs throughout the analysis, drawing attention away from operations that might change the function of such stimulus changes (i.e., actual MOs) and implying that the behavioral function of these stimulus changes is fixed.

Smith, Iwata, Goh, and Shore ( 1995 ) explored the influences of some antecedent variables on escape-maintained behavior and encountered similar conceptual difficulties when doing so. The antecedent variables they considered included task novelty, duration of instructional sessions, and rate of task presentation. Each of these manipulations was construed as an MO manipulation, with explicit reference to Michael’s ( 1982 , 1993a , 1993b ) analysis. None of the manipulations, however, are appropriately classified as such. A novel task is a different set of stimuli rather than a change in the function of the stimuli initially escaped (recall that an MO must change the function of stimulus onset or offset).

This misclassification is the same as calling a change in the type of reinforcer (e.g., candy instead of fruit) an MO. Alterations in duration and rate are also changes in stimulus presentation but not function. Calling these manipulations MOs is the same as calling longer durations of access to food or a greater number of food deliveries MOs. Manipulating rate and duration of stimulus delivery might be construed as MOs in the same sense that fixed- or variable-time delivery of a reinforcer can be construed as an MO—additional exposure to a stimulus can change its function (e.g., Wilder & Carr, 1998 ). But Smith et al. ( 1995 ) did not explore such an analysis.

These issues are only a small sample of those that we have encountered in the relevant literature, a thorough review of which is beyond the scope of the present article. The misapplication of the MO concept to negative reinforcement has significantly hobbled our analysis and treatment of negatively reinforced behavior in applied settings. The misapplication at this fundamental level is clearly evident with respect to “conditioned motivating operations” and has caused additional confusion at this level of analysis.

Conditioned Motivating Operations

Michael and Miguel ( 2019 ) defined conditioned motivating operations (CMOs) as “motivating variables that alter the reinforcing effectiveness of other stimuli, objects, or events as a result of the organism’s learning history” (p. 383). 3 The CMO subtype most relevant to the current analysis is the reflexive CMO (CMO-R), which Laraway et al. ( 2014 ) defined as a CMO that “makes its own offset a reinforcer or punisher” (p. 606). This definition is essentially a restatement of the MO as applied to negative reinforcement under the current conceptualization, the difference being that the offset of the stimulus is a conditioned, rather than unconditioned, reinforcer or punisher.

For example, in a signaled avoidance procedure, a brief tone might reliably precede shock delivery, such that after several pairings a lab animal would respond to terminate the tone (and avoid the shock), although it would not respond to terminate the tone prior to this conditioning history. The current conceptualization of MOs would consider the tone, after conditioning, as a CMO-R. That is, because of the organism’s learning history, the onset of the tone establishes the tone’s offset as a reinforcer. The CMO-R concept suffers from the same logical and practical failings as the current MO concept’s handling of unconditioned negative reinforcement.

The organism’s history—in particular, respondent pairing of the tone and shock (i.e., making the tone predictive of the shock)—established the tone offset as a conditioned negative reinforcer. If we consider respondent conditioning procedures to be MOs, then this conditioning, and not the onset of the tone, is the MO. It may not be beneficial, however, to classify respondent conditioning procedures as MOs because changes in stimulus function as a result of such procedures are best understood with direct reference to principles of respondent conditioning. Moreover, and more important, researchers and theoreticians have long and profitably explored the necessary and sufficient conditions for establishing conditioned reinforcers, and no one has construed them as MOs (e.g., Fantino, 1981 ; Kelleher & Gollub, 1962 ; Shahan & Cunningham, 2015 ). Nothing of value would be gained by so doing, but it is important to recognize that MOs can influence how readily conditioned reinforcers are established, as well as their relative effectiveness as reinforcers once established. A few examples of MOs that can influence the effectiveness of respondent conditioning procedures and operant behavior established or maintained by resulting conditioned reinforcers in escape and avoidance scenarios include drug administration (e.g., Babbini, Gaiardi, & Bartoletti, 1980 ), sleep deprivation (e.g., Kennedy, Meyer, Werts, & Cushing, 2000 ), and food deprivation (e.g., Leander, 1973 ).

With respect to unsignaled avoidance (i.e., Sidman avoidance), the CMO-R concept also fails to make any meaningful contribution. The mechanisms underlying avoidance in the absence of explicit “warning stimuli” are still contested and poorly understood (Krypotos, Effting, Kindt, & Beckers, 2015 ). Although we have not seen a description of the relevance of the CMO-R to unsignaled avoidance, this term would presumably take the place of the implicit “conditioned aversive stimulus” (e.g., stimuli correlated with the passage of time and the absence of an avoidance response) in the two-factor account of unsignaled avoidance (Dinsmoor, 2001 ). Therefore, the CMO-R would add nothing new to the analysis. Instead, this would represent another misapplication of the MO concept and a missed opportunity to account for factors that are not currently (formally) accounted for by behavior analysts. The MO concept, appropriately applied, prompts us to consider, for example, what happens to avoidance responding when an MO is in place that reduces the punishing effectiveness of the avoided stimulus. Dickinson and Balleine ( 1994 ) have observed that, as a general rule, the organism must have some experience with the function-altered outcome (in the state induced by the MO) in order for the MO to change behavior. Following this rule, we would not expect that administering an analgesic would result in a rat immediately reducing its responding to terminate a shock-predictive tone unless it had previous experience receiving the shock in the analgesic state.

We know little about the role of MOs in respondent-operant interactions and even less about their influence on these interactions in applied settings. The MO, properly applied, highlights this knowledge deficit and prompts us to consider these variables. Many histories are possible and, if one wants to predict whether an organism will respond to terminate a given stimulus, one needs to know the specific kind of history that will produce that outcome. Simply saying that the onset of a stimulus is an MO that establishes its own offset as a reinforcer in some cases, but not in others, is of no value and preempts more precise analyses.

As a case in point, consider an article by Carbone et al. ( 2010 ) that provides a detailed review of the variables that affect escape-maintained responding in children with autism exposed to discrete-trials procedures. The authors adeptly summarized the relevant literature, but their conceptual analysis was impeded rather than enhanced by the CMO-R concept, which they promoted as a valuable conceptual tool. In the article, the authors discussed “treatments designed to abolish the CMO-R” (p. 116; note, it is not meaningful to talk about abolishing an operation) rather than talking about altering tasks such that their termination ceases to function as a negative reinforcer or selecting alternative tasks whose termination does not function as a negative reinforcer. Examples of such treatments discussed by Carbone et al. ( 2010 ) include offering a choice of tasks, varying tasks, changing the pace of instruction, and changing task difficulty. They also discussed the strategy of embedding positive reinforcers into the instructional session but, rather than using well-understood principles associated with operant and respondent conditioning (e.g., counterconditioning) to explain why this might be beneficial, such procedures are described as “weakening the value of the CMO-R” (p. 117). In actuality, all of these manipulations changed the stimuli to which participants to which participants were exposed, and could respond to escape, not the reinforcing effectiveness of escaping from the stimuli initially present. Therefore, by definition, they cannot serve as MOs.

In their general analysis, the authors indicated with a diagram (Carbone et al., 2010 , Figure 2, p. 114) that children who emit escape responses in “demand” settings are exposed to a “worsening set of conditions” that can involve, for example, a “session beginning with removal of positive reinforcement.” The diagram goes on to specify that “termination of worsening conditions is a reinforcer.” With repeated exposures, previously neutral stimuli (“instructional demands, instructional materials, and presence of teacher”) become “warning stimuli” (CMO-Rs), the onset of which establish their own offset as a reinforcer. This analysis parallels the analysis associated with the signaled avoidance procedure; both are based on respondent conditioning. The CMO-R terminology, however, is superfluous, adding complexity without enhancing precision and promoting the incorrect assumption that the functions of relevant stimulus presentations are fixed.

Understanding how conditioned negative reinforcement works is critical to our treatment of behavioral problems in applied settings. This requires a solid grasp of many behavioral principles, including those related to respondent conditioning. If we apply the existing principle of conditioned negative reinforcement to our analysis instead of the redundant CMO-R concept, we are reminded that a stimulus whose termination functions as a conditioned negative reinforcer will also likely function as a conditioned positive punisher when presented. If the reader finds it helpful, they might use the term “conditioned aversive stimulus” to describe this stimulus, as long as they are aware of the issues with the term “aversive stimulus” that we pointed out earlier. If we have established that termination of a specific task functions as a conditioned negative reinforcer (i.e., the task is a “conditioned aversive stimulus”), we should also anticipate that its presentation will function as a conditioned positive punisher, reducing the strength of behavior that was occurring prior to its introduction. The CMO-R concept obscures rather than clarifies these and other relevant processes.

As Carbone et al. ( 2010 ) use the term, the “CMO-R” functions as an intervening variable (MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948 ). An intervening variable is an inferred (i.e., not directly observed) variable assumed to be responsible for the relation between independent variables and dependent variables. Unlike a hypothetical construct, it has no properties beyond those evident in the functional relations between independent and dependent variables. Intervening variables can be useful heuristics, but they are not explanatory concepts. Carbone et al. ( 2010 ) describe a variety of operations (changes in the environment arranged as independent variables) that affect rate or frequency of escape responding (the dependent variable) and argue that the changes in the environment alter the evocative effectiveness of a CMO-R, leading to a change in escape responding. The studies they review never isolated the specific stimulus that served as the CMO-R, nor did they demonstrate that terminating that stimulus in-and-of-itself served as a reinforcer. Rather, they showed that changing some aspect(s) of a complex environment increased the likelihood of responses that terminated contact with some or, rarely, all, aspects of that environment. The CMO-R is inferred, not empirically demonstrated. Moreover, the possibility that stimuli predictive of the “worsening of conditions,” such as the presence of a teacher, might serve as discriminative stimuli for escape responding is not considered. As noted previously, focusing attention on the CMO-R directs attention away from meaningfully analyzing the behavioral principles involved in the behavior change.

A major problem with the analysis proposed by Carbone et al. ( 2010 ) is that not all children exposed to the same demand conditions responded to escape. Thus, the demand conditions must have constituted a “worsening of conditions” for some of them, those who engaged in escape responding, but not for the remainder. (It would seemingly constitute a “bettering of conditions” should a child respond to enter the demand condition, which at least a few will do.) Contrast that to electrical shocks, which they consider to represent a “worsening of conditions” in their example of the development of the CMO-R in the laboratory. No learning history is required for delivery of electric shocks of sufficient intensity to weaken, and termination of such shocks to weaken, a variety of response topographies emitted by all, or nearly all, members of a given species of laboratory animal (e.g., rats). Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the onset of such shocks as unconditioned positive punishers and their offset as unconditioned negative reinforcers.

This situation is very different from the “demand” condition arranged in functional analysis, where termination of exposure to a relatively complex set of stimuli (not a single stimulus, like shock) serves as a negative reinforcer for the challenging target responses (which vary in topography) of some , but not most, of the individuals tested. Recall that Hanley et al. ( 2003 ) found that 89.2% of the functional analysis studies they reviewed included an “escape” or “demand” condition, but only 34.2% produced results suggesting that the targeted problem behavior was escape-maintained. “Demand” conditions clearly do not involve presenting UMOs for escape responding, or such responding would be consistently engendered. The truth of this assertion is clearly evident in the seminal article that introduced the functional analysis procedures that are now widely used (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1994 ).

Iwata et al. ( 1994 ) examined the self-injurious behavior of nine children with self-injurious behavior under several brief experimental conditions. During their “academic demand” condition, the experimenter presented individualized learning trials using a graduated three-prompt procedure. Social praise was presented when the participant responded appropriately. If self-injury occurred, “the experimenter immediately terminated the trial and turned away from the subject for 30 s, with an additional 30-s change-over delay for repeated self-injury” (p. 102). This arrangement is similar to that typically arranged in the “demand” condition of other functional analyses. Iwata et al. found that two of their nine participants exhibited substantial levels of self-injury in the demand condition. It is clear that condition, which apparently differed in some unspecified ways across participants (e.g., in the specific educational activities involved), did not constitute a UMO. Moreover, it is impossible to discern which aspect of the demand condition actually served to negatively reinforce the self-injury (was it termination of a prompt? cessation of verbal requests? the experimenter’s turning away?) or the specific stimuli that evoked escape responding (i.e., that served as UMOs or CMO-Rs, under the current conceptualization). One may liken escape-maintained problem behavior in people with developmental disabilities to signaled avoidance responding in rats, as do Carbone et al. ( 2010 ), and assert that the analogy is informative. But that is untrue. There is neither a clear UMO (i.e., analogue to shock) nor an obvious CMO-R (i.e., analogue to a tone predictive of shock) in the former case.

It might be possible to quantify the specific environmental changes that different children exposed to the same demand condition experience (e.g., rates of praise statements and rates of reprimands), and to determine whether these changes constitute a “worsening of conditions,” and hence should support escape responding, but no one makes such determinations. Rather, Carbone et al. ( 2010 ) and other advocates of the current conceptualization of MOs appear to assume that “conditions have worsened” in the demand condition if it engenders escape responding. Such an analysis is circular and of no predictive value.

Of course, the same criticism can be applied to attempts to explain escape responding in terms of negative reinforcement. Why does an organism respond to terminate a stimulus? Because that stimulus is a negative reinforcer. How do you know that it is a negative reinforcer? Because the organism responds to terminate it. Meehl ( 1950 ) proposed long ago that it is possible to isolate stimulus changes that serve as reinforcers in a variety of situations. Therefore, it is possible to predict their effects a priori, which is requisite if the concept of reinforcement is to be of explanatory or predictive value. We have argued (Poling, Lotfizadeh, & Edwards, 2017 ), and continue to believe, that knowledge of operations (environmental changes) that serve as actual MOs, i.e., that modulate the reinforcing effectiveness of particular kinds of events and the control of behavior by antecedent stimuli historically relevant to those events, is invaluable in predicting whether a given event will serve as a reinforcer.

Are MOs Relevant to Negative Reinforcement?

The first step in identifying potential MOs is confirming that we are examining the influence of an event on the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of the presentation or termination of a stimulus. This MO “test” disqualifies any manipulations that involve making changes directly to the stimulus itself (e.g., presenting and removing simple rather than complex math problems). This “test” also disqualifies manipulations that simply make a stimulus change possible, which is how the MO is currently applied to negative reinforcers. So, what operations pass this test? From our critical analysis of the MO as it is currently applied to negative reinforcement, the reader might conclude that few, if any, MOs are relevant to negative reinforcement, but this is not the case. There are many MOs with potential relevance to negative reinforcement that have been identified in the literature and many more that are likely to be relevant but have not yet been investigated.

For example, May and Kennedy ( 2010 ) identified a series of health conditions that have the potential to alter the reinforcing effectiveness of stimulus removal (described as “establishing events as noxious” in their review), including the following: allergies increased the reinforcing effectiveness of task removal (Kennedy & Meyer, 1996 ); otitis media (a middle-ear infection) increased the reinforcing effectiveness of the removal of loud noise (O’Reilly, 1997 ); menses (and associated dysmenorrhea) appeared to increase the reinforcing effectiveness of demand removal (Carr, Smith, Giacin, Whelan, & Pancari, 2003 ); sleep deprivation was associated with higher rates of negatively reinforced problem behavior in several studies, presumably because it increased the reinforcing effectiveness of termination of the relevant stimuli (Kennedy & Meyer, 1996 ; O’Reilly, 1995 ; O’Reilly & Lancioni, 2000 ); and, likewise, constipation was associated with higher rates of negatively reinforced problem behavior (Christensen et al., 2009 ; Janowsky, Kraus, Barnhill, Elami, & Davis, 2003 ; Kozma & Mason, 2003 ).

It is our ethical obligation to consider health conditions before pursuing other explanations for problem behavior. An understanding of some common health conditions and their potential to serve as MOs (i.e., to increase or decrease the reinforcing effectiveness of the termination of specific stimuli) should help us to identify these MOs when they are in effect and prompt us to consider others that have not yet been documented in the relatively small body of relevant literature.

As a second example, the administration of certain drugs can alter the reinforcing effectiveness of the removal of specific stimuli and, therefore, should be considered as potential MOs relevant to negative reinforcement. The relevance of certain drugs to negative reinforcement is evident in a study by Northup, Fusilier, Swanson, Roane, and Borrero ( 1997 ), who evaluated the influence of methylphenidate on the results of reinforcer assessments with common classroom reinforcers and found that the drug increased the reinforcing effectiveness of tokens that could be used to escape from (avoid) future academic tasks.

Another drug was examined by Kelley, Fisher, Lomas, and Sanders ( 2006 ), who evaluated the effects of amphetamine on destructive behavior emitted by an 11-year-old boy. The behavior appeared to be maintained by escape from academic task demands and access to tangible items. Destructive behavior was consistently less frequent, and compliance was consistently more frequent, when amphetamine was administered. This study was not designed to evaluate the reinforcing effectiveness of escape from demands, and the authors framed the drug effect as shifting response allocation to the appropriate response, compliance. Nonetheless, the mechanism underlying this shift in response allocation could be a reduction in the reinforcing effectiveness of task termination, in which case it would be proper to label amphetamine administration as an MO. Few studies have examined the effects of drugs on escape-maintained, challenging behaviors, and there appears to be a need for further research in this area. The MO concept, properly applied, may be of value in generating useful research questions and clarifying research findings.

A third general class of MOs relevant to negative reinforcement is exposure to the condition from which the individual might work to escape. For example, exposure to a task involving completion of math problems may increase the reinforcing effectiveness of escape from doing math problems, which corresponds to some extent with the lay concepts of “boredom” and “fatigue.” On the other hand, reducing exposure to a task might reduce the reinforcing effectiveness of escape from that task. Several researchers have demonstrated that fixed-time escape from tasks can result in a decrease in escape-maintained problem behavior (Allen & Wallace, 2013 ; Kodak, Miltenberger, & Romaniuk, 2003 ; Waller & Higbee, 2010 ). In all of these studies, the amount of exposure to the conditions from which the individual initially escaped appears to have been reduced by the fixed-time escape procedure (i.e., in the experimental condition) because the procedure involved a regular period without task demands. For example, Waller and Higbee gave their participants regular breaks from the task that lasted 30 s or 1 min, thereby reducing the total duration of exposure to the task conditions.

There are at least two plausible explanations for the effectiveness of this type of intervention in reducing escape-maintained behavior. First, delivery of the reinforcer independent of the problem behavior weakens the correlation between these two events and serves as an alternative form of extinction (Katz & Catania, 2005 ). Second, although exposure to more positive reinforcement (e.g., food) in general reduces the reinforcing effectiveness of additional exposure to that form of positive reinforcement, exposure to negative reinforcement (i.e., escape) reduces the amount of exposure to the conditions from which the individual is escaping and may reduce the reinforcing effectiveness of escape from these conditions, an MO mechanism.

It is interesting that exposure to one condition (e.g., one that involves engagement in dissimilar tasks, such as physical exercise) may reduce the reinforcing effectiveness of escape from another condition (e.g., math problem completion). For instance, Cannella-Malone, Tullis, and Kazee ( 2011 ) found that two 20-min and six 5-min periods of physical exercise each day significantly reduced the frequency of escape-maintained problem behavior in the three boys in their study. Although additional research is required to clarify the specific mechanisms that are responsible for this effect, a plausible explanation is that the physical exercise functioned as an AO, reducing the reinforcing effectiveness of academic task removal.

This brief overview of MOs that are, or may be, relevant to negative reinforcement is not an exhaustive review of the relevant literature. Our aims in providing these examples are to demonstrate that there are many MOs relevant to escape-maintained challenging behavior, to clarify the type of events that may appropriately be classified as MOs, and to draw attention to the important role of such events in applied settings.

The MO concept as it is currently applied to negative reinforcement is superfluous, because it refers only to a logical necessity, and draws attention away from real MOs that are relevant to negative reinforcement. This application of the concept is of no value in predicting and controlling behavior. Moreover, it has led to an oversimplified, and misleading, analysis of the demand condition of functional analyses, hence, of escape-maintained challenging behavior. We implore behavior analysts to consider these points carefully when describing the MO and applying this concept to the analysis and treatment of negatively reinforced behavior.

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

1 The discriminative stimulus concept as related to negative reinforcement may best be reserved for describing stimuli that are correlated with the differential availability of response-dependent termination of the stimulus whose termination would function as a reinforcer. One could conceptualize both stimuli as discriminative stimuli but the benefits of doing so are unclear to us.

2 The quote from Michael and Miguel ( 2019 ) also exemplifies another concern that we have raised about the MO concept in general—that is, the incorrect assertion that MOs evoke all responses that have previously been reinforced by the relevant reinforcer (see Edwards et al., 2019a , 2019b ; Poling et al., 2020 ), but we will not explore that issue further herein.

3 If they serve as reinforcers, objects and events are stimuli, and this passage illustrates a general problem with the current MO conceptualization: it suffers from a proliferation of terms and undue complexity (Catania & St. Peter, 2019 ).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Allen KD, Wallace DP. Effectiveness of using noncontingent escape for general behavior management in a pediatric dental clinic. Journal of Applied Behavior analysis. 2013; 46 (4):723–737. doi: 10.1002/jaba.82. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Azrin NH, Holz WC. Punishment. In: Honig WK, editor. Operant behavior: Areas of research and application . New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1966. pp. 380–447. [ Google Scholar ]
Babbini M, Gaiardi M, Bartoletti M. Morphine effects upon discriminated approach and discriminated avoidance in rats: Antagonism by naloxone. Psychopharmacology. 1980; 70 :73–77. doi: 10.1007/BF00432373. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baron A, Galizio M. Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved? The Behavior Analyst. 2005; 28 :85–98. doi: 10.1007/BF03392107. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cannella-Malone HI, Tullis CA, Kazee AR. Using antecedent exercise to decrease challenging behavior in boys with developmental disabilities and an emotional disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2011; 13 :230–239. doi: 10.1177/1098300711406122. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carbone VJ, Morgenstern B, Zecchin-Tirri G, Kolberg L. The role of reflexive-conditioned motivating operation (CMO-R) during discrete trial instruction of children with autism. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities. 2010; 25 :110–124. doi: 10.1037/h0100399. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carr EG, Smith CE, Giacin TA, Whelan BM, Pancari J. Menstrual discomfort as a biological setting event for severe problem behavior: Assessment and intervention. American Journal on Mental Retardation. 2003; 108 :117–133. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2003)108<0117:MDAABS>2.0.CO;2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Catania CA, St. Peter C. Establishing terms: A commentary on Edwards, Lotfizadeh, and Poling (2019) Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2019; 112 (1):15–17. doi: 10.1002/jeab.537. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Christensen TJ, Ringdahl JE, Bosch JJ, Falcomata TS, Luke JR, Andelman MS. Constipation associated with self-injurious and aggressive behavior exhibited by a child diagnosed with autism. Education & Treatment of Children. 2009; 32 :89–103. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0041. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dickinson A, Balleine B. Motivational control of goal-directed action. Animal Learning & Behavior. 1994; 22 (1):1–18. doi: 10.3758/BF03199951. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dinsmoor JA. Stimuli inevitably generated by behavior that avoids electric shock are inherently reinforcing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2001; 75 (3):311–333. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.75-311. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Edwards TL, Lotfizadeh A, Poling A. Motivating operations and stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2019; 112 :1–9. doi: 10.1002/jeab.516. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Edwards TL, Lotfizadeh A, Poling A. Rethinking motivating operations: A reply to commentaries on Edwards, Lotfizadeh, and Poling (2019) Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2019; 112 :47–59. doi: 10.1002/jeab.542. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fantino, E. (1981). Contiguity, response strength, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. In P. Harzem & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Advances in analysis of behavior: Vol. 2. Predictability, correlation, and contiguity ( pp. 169–201). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hanley GP, Iwata BA, McCord BE. Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2003; 36 :147–185. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hesse BE. The establishing operation revisited. The Behavior Analyst. 1993; 16 :215–217. doi: 10.1007/BF03392626. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hineline PN. Aversive control: A separate domain? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1984; 42 (3):495–509. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-495. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 27 , 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities , 1982, 2 , 3–20.) doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Iwata J. On the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst. 2006; 29 :121–123. doi: 10.1007/BF03392123. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Janowsky DS, Kraus JE, Barnhill J, Elami RB, Davis JM. Effects of topiramate on aggressive, self-injurious, and disruptive/destructive behaviors in the intellectually disabled: An open-label retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2003; 23 :500–504. doi: 10.1097/01.jcp.0000088906.24613.76. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Katz IA, Catania CA. Concurrent performances: Extinction, noncontingent reinforcement and variably delayed reinforcement. European Journal of Behavior Analysis. 2005; 6 (1):95–108. doi: 10.1080/15021149.2005.11434254. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelleher RT, Gollub LR. A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1962; 5 :543–597. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s543. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelley ME, Fisher WW, Lomas JE, Sanders RQ. Some effects of stimulant medication on response allocation: A double-blind analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2006; 39 :243–247. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2006.24-05. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kennedy CH, Meyer KA. Sleep deprivation, allergy symptoms, and negatively reinforced problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1996; 29 :133–135. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-133. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kennedy CH, Meyer KA, Werts MG, Cushing LS. Effects of sleep deprivation on free-operant avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2000; 73 (3):333–345. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-333. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kodak T, Miltenberger RG, Romaniuk C. The effects of differential negative reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent escape on compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2003; 36 (3):379–382. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-379. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kozma C, Mason S. Survey of nursing and medical profile prior to deinstitutionalization of a population with profound mental retardation. Clinical Nursing Research. 2003; 12 :8–22. doi: 10.1177/1054773803238737. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Krypotos AM, Effting M, Kindt M, Beckers T. Avoidance learning: A review of theoretical models and recent developments. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015; 9 :189. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00189. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Langthorne P, McGill P, Oliver C. The motivating operation and negatively reinforced problem behavior: A systematic review. Behavior Modification. 2014; 38 (1):107–159. doi: 10.1177/0145445513509649. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Laraway S, Snycerski S, Michael J, Poling A. Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2003; 36 (3):407–414. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-407. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Laraway S, Snycerski S, Olson R, Becker B, Poling A. The motivating operations concept: Current status and critical response. The Psychological Record. 2014; 64 (3):601–623. doi: 10.1007/s40732-014-0080-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Leander JD. Effects of food deprivation on free-operant avoidance behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1973; 19 :17–24. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-17. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
MacCorquodale K, Meehl PE. On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review. 1948; 55 (2):95–107. doi: 10.1037/h0056029. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
May ME, Kennedy CH. Health and problem behavior among people with intellectual disabilities. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2010; 3 (2):4–12. doi: 10.1007/BF03391759. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Meehl PE. On the circularity of the law of effect. Psychological Bulletin. 1950; 47 (1):52–75. doi: 10.1037/h0058557. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Michael J. Positive and negative reinforcement, a distinction that is no longer necessary; or a better way to talk about bad things. Behaviorism. 1975; 3 :33–44. [ Google Scholar ]
Michael J. Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1982; 37 :149–155. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-149. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Michael J. Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst. 1993; 16 :191–206. doi: 10.1007/BF03392623. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Michael J. Author’s response. The Behavior Analyst. 1993; 16 :229–236. doi: 10.1007/BF03392629. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Michael J, Miguel C. Motivating operations. In: Cooper JO, Heron TE, Heward WL, editors. Applied behavior analysis . 3. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson; 2019. pp. 372–394. [ Google Scholar ]
Northup J, Fusilier I, Swanson V, Roane H, Borrero J. An evaluation of methylphenidate as a potential establishing operation for some common classroom reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1997; 30 :615–625. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-615. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
O’Reilly MF. Functional analysis and treatment of escape-maintained aggression correlated with sleep deprivation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1995; 28 :225–226. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-225. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
O’Reilly MF. Functional analysis of episodic self-injury correlated with recurrent otitis media. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1997; 30 :165–167. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-165. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
O’Reilly MF, Lancioni G. Response covariation of escape-maintained aberrant behavior correlated with sleep deprivation. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2000; 21 :125–136. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(00)00029-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Petursdottir AI. Downstream effects of redefining MOs: Commentary on Edwards et al. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2019; 112 :37–40. doi: 10.1002/jeab.530. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Poling A, Carr J, LeBlanc L. Operant conditioning. In: Hersen M, Sledge W, editors. Encyclopedia of psychotherapy . New York, NY: Academic Press; 2002. pp. 271–287. [ Google Scholar ]
Poling A, Lotfizadeh A, Edwards T. Predicting reinforcement: Utility of the motivating operation concept. The Behavior Analyst. 2017; 40 :49–56. doi: 10.1007/s40614-017-0091-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Poling A, Lotfizadeh A, Edwards TL. Motivating operations and discriminative stimuli: Distinguishable but interactive variables. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2020; 13 :502–508. doi: 10.1007/s40614-017-0091-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roscoe EM, Rooker GW, Pence ST, Longworth LJ. Assessing the utility of a demand assessment for functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2009; 42 :819–825. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-819. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shahan TA, Cunningham P. Conditioned reinforcement and information theory reconsidered. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2015; 103 :405–418. doi: 10.1002/jeab.142. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Skinner BF. Science and human behavior . New York, NY: Free Press; 1953. [ Google Scholar ]
Smith, R. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., & Shore, B. A. (1995). Analysis of establishing operations for self-injury maintained by escape, 28 , 515–535. doi:10.1901/jaba.1995.28-515 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Waller RD, Higbee TS. The effects of fixed-time escape on inappropriate and appropriate classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2010; 43 (1):149–153. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-149. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wilder DA, Carr JE. Recent advances in the modification of establishing operations to reduce aberrant behavior. Behavioral Interventions. 1998; 13 :43–59. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-078X(199802)13:1<43::AID-BIN3>3.0.CO;2-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Reinforcement in Psychology: Definition and Examples

Categories Behavior

Sharing is caring!

In psychology, reinforcement refers to a process where behavior is strengthened or increased by the presentation or removal of a stimulus. Reinforcement is a key concept in behaviorism , a school of psychology that emphasizes the role of the environment in shaping behavior.

According to behaviorists, behavior is learned through the consequences that follow it, and reinforcement is an essential tool for shaping and modifying behavior.

Table of Contents

Types of Reinforcement

Two main types of reinforcement can increase the likelihood that a behavior will occur again: positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement.

Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement involves the presentation of a desirable stimulus following a behavior, which increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again. For example, a student who receives praise or a good grade for completing an assignment is more likely to complete future assignments.

Positive reinforcement involves adding an incentive that makes a behavior more likely to occur.

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement involves the removal of an unpleasant stimulus following a behavior, which also increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again in the future. For example, a child who can stop doing chores after finishing homework is more likely to complete homework promptly.

Negative reinforcement involves removing something to make a behavior more likely to occur.

Primary vs. Secondary Reinforcement

Primary and secondary reinforcement are two types of reinforcement that can be used to shape and modify behavior.

Primary Reinforcement

Primary reinforcement refers to a type of reinforcement that is inherently rewarding or satisfying, such as food, water, or other basic biological needs.

Primary reinforcement is sometimes called “unconditioned reinforcement” because it does not require any learning or conditioning to be effective.

Secondary Reinforcement

Secondary reinforcement is a type of reinforcement that is not inherently rewarding but becomes associated with a primary reinforcer through learning or conditioning.

Examples of secondary reinforcement include money, grades, praise, and other social rewards. Secondary reinforcement is sometimes called “conditioned reinforcement” because it requires conditioning or learning to become effective.

Effects of Primary and Secondary Reinforcement

In both cases, reinforcement is used to increase the likelihood of a desired behavior occurring again in the future. Primary reinforcement is often used to establish a behavior initially, while secondary reinforcement is used to maintain the behavior over time.

For example, a child may be initially motivated to learn to read by the satisfaction of successfully decoding a word (primary reinforcement) but later motivated to continue reading by the promise of a good grade or praise from a teacher (secondary reinforcement).

Uses for Reinforcement

Reinforcement is a powerful tool that can be applied in various real-world settings to shape and modify behavior. Here are some examples of how reinforcement can be applied in the real world:

In education, teachers can use reinforcement to increase desired behaviors in students. For example, teachers might praise or reward students who participate in class, complete homework assignments on time, or achieve good grades.

In business settings, reinforcement can increase productivity and job satisfaction among employees. For example, employers might offer bonuses or other rewards to employees who meet or exceed performance targets.

Sports

In sports, coaches can use reinforcement to improve performance and motivation among athletes. For example, coaches might praise or reward athletes who perform well in practice or games.

In health settings, reinforcement can encourage healthy behaviors such as exercise, healthy eating, and medication adherence. For example, doctors might provide praise or other rewards to patients who follow their treatment plans and achieve desired health outcomes.

In parenting, reinforcement can be used to shape and modify behavior in children. For example, parents might praise or reward children who complete chores or exhibit positive social behaviors.

Animal Training

Reinforcement is commonly used in animal training to teach new behaviors or modify existing ones. For example, animal trainers might use food or other rewards to teach a dog to sit or to perform tricks.

Reinforcement can be a powerful tool for shaping behavior. Knowing how it works can be useful in a variety of settings, such as education, parenting, and business management.

Reinforcement In Therapy

Reinforcement is commonly used in therapy to shape and modify behavior in individuals with various psychological disorders. Here are some ways reinforcement is used in therapy:

Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement involves rewarding desired behaviors to increase the likelihood that they will occur again in the future. In therapy, positive reinforcement might involve providing praise, compliments, or other rewards to patients who exhibit positive behaviors or make progress toward their treatment goals.

Token Economies

Token economies involve providing patients with tokens or points for exhibiting desired behaviors, which can then be exchanged for rewards. This approach is often used in inpatient psychiatric settings to promote positive behaviors among patients.

Contingency Management

Contingency management involves using tangible rewards, such as gift cards or vouchers, to reinforce desired behaviors. This approach is often used to treat substance use disorders, where patients might receive rewards for remaining abstinent or attending counseling sessions.

Factors That Affect Reinforcement

There are several factors that can influence how people respond to reinforcement, including:

The timing of reinforcement can have a significant impact on how effective it is. Reinforcement that is provided immediately after a behavior is more effective than reinforcement that is delayed.

The frequency of reinforcement also plays a role in its effectiveness. Reinforcement that is provided consistently is more effective than reinforcement that is provided intermittently.

The size or magnitude of the reinforcement can also influence how effective it is. Larger rewards are generally more effective than smaller rewards.

Individual Differences

People vary in their responsiveness to reinforcement, and individual differences such as personality traits, motivation, and past experiences can all influence how people respond to reinforcement.

Cultural values and norms can also influence how people respond to reinforcement. For example, some cultures may emphasize social recognition and praise as a form of reinforcement, while others may prioritize material rewards.

Reinforcement can become less effective if the person becomes satiated or bored with the reward. This can be addressed by varying the type of reinforcement or by using intermittent schedules of reinforcement.

The schedule of reinforcement that is used to determine the timing and frequency of reinforcement has a significant impact on rate and strength of response.

History of Reinforcement

Reinforcement has a rich history in psychology, with roots tracing back to the early 20th century. Here is a brief overview of the history of reinforcement in psychology:

Thorndike’s Law of Effect

In 1898, Edward Thorndike conducted experiments with cats and puzzle boxes, observing that the cats learned to escape the boxes more quickly over time through trial and error.

He proposed the “ law of effect ,” which stated that behaviors followed by satisfying consequences are more likely to be repeated in the future.

Skinner’s Operant Conditioning

In the 1930s and 1940s, B.F. Skinner expanded on Thorndike’s work and developed the theory of operant conditioning. He observed that behaviors that are reinforced (rewarded) tend to increase in frequency, while behaviors that are punished tend to decrease in frequency.

Skinner also introduced the concept of shaping, in which behaviors are gradually modified through the use of reinforcement.

Behaviorism

Skinner’s work helped to establish behaviorism as a dominant school of psychology in the mid-20th century. Behaviorists believed that all behavior could be explained through operant and classical conditioning principles and that internal mental processes were not relevant to the study of behavior.

Cognitive Psychology

In the 1960s and 1970s, cognitive psychology emerged as a new school of thought focused on the internal mental processes that influence behavior. However, the principles of reinforcement and conditioning continue to be important in modern psychology and are used in various settings, including education, therapy, and business management.

Neville V, Dayan P, Gilchrist ID, Paul ES, Mendl M. Using primary reinforcement to enhance translatability of a human affect and decision-making judgment bias task . J Cogn Neurosci . 2021;33(12):2523-2535. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01776

Shahan TA. Conditioned reinforcement and response strength . J Exp Anal Behav . 2010;93(2):269–289. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.93-269

On the Border
ABC-7 Alert Center
Military-Fort Bliss
Watch a Newscast
ABC-7 StormTrack Doppler
El Paso Chihuahuas
Watch Locomotive FC
Texas Politics
New Mexico Politics
Watch Live Events
Borderland Crimes Podcast
Community Champions
Borderland Experts
Good Vibes Only
Sunday Funday
Entertainment
Events Calendar
KVIA Careers
Borderland Careers
Contact KVIA
People of ABC-7
Closed Captioning
EEO Public Filing
FCC Public File
KVIA Jobs and Internships
Download Our Apps
History of KVIA ABC-7
TV Listings

EPCC Computer Science students attend global symposium for their winning assignment

EL PASO, Texas (KVIA) -- Two EPCC Computer Science students, Ivan Alonso and Emilian Garcia, took their winning assignment, "The Fingerprint Assignment: An Interdisciplinary Assessment for CS I Education" at the Technical Symposium of the Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education in Portland, Oregon.

Alonso and Garcia, with the help of their professor, Dr. Christian Servin, presented their work on March 20th through the 23rd at the symposium.

The team's work was considered among the top six assignments globally for the current year. This is also the first time the session has accepted an assignment from a community college.

Alonso said the work he and Garcia did was challenging, but allowed him to have a deeper understanding of computer science. “Through participation in this research, I discovered knowledge beyond the classroom,” Alonso, said. “Engaging in research exposed me to real world applications and challenges, which fostered a deeper appreciation for the complexities of the field.”

Jump to comments ↓

Valeria Medina

Related articles, hawaii says it’s safe to surf and swim in lahaina’s coastal waters after wildfire, mexico is the main producer of illicit fentanyl but it can’t get enough for medical use, study finds, desantis bans local governments from protecting workers from heat and limits police oversight boards, maggie rogers on ‘don’t forget me,’ the album she wrote for a sunday drive.

KVIA ABC 7 is committed to providing a forum for civil and constructive conversation.

Please keep your comments respectful and relevant. You can review our Community Guidelines by clicking here

If you would like to share a story idea, please submit it here .

IMAGES

What Is 'Negative Reinforcement'? Definition and Real-World Examples
10 Negative Reinforcement Examples (2023)
Negative reinforcement examples
Negative Reinforcement Using Operant Conditioning
Negative Reinforcement Explained
Negative Reinforcement (Definition + Examples)

VIDEO

negative reinforcement is good SOMETIMES #valorant
Positive Reinforcement vs Negative Reinforcement
negative reinforcement by THE (Someone!)
The Power of Negative Reinforcement
the power of negative reinforcement #psychology #motivation #darkspectrum
Positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement machine learning

COMMENTS

What Is Negative Reinforcement? Examples & Definition
Negative reinforcement is a basic principle of Skinner's operant conditioning, which focuses on how animals and humans learn by observing the consequences of their own actions (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019). Skinner argued that learning is an active process. When humans and animals act on and in their environment, consequences follow ...
Negative Reinforcement: Definition, Examples, and More
Negative reinforcement is a learning method that reinforces desired behaviors instead of punishing unwanted ones. Humans learn in many different ways. One of the main ways that we — along with ...
Negative Reinforcement and Operant Conditioning
Negative reinforcement strengthens a response or behavior by stopping, removing, or avoiding a negative outcome or aversive stimulus. B. F. Skinner first described the term in his theory of operant conditioning . Rather than delivering an aversive stimulus (punishment) or a reward (positive reinforcement), negative reinforcement works by taking ...
Reinforcement and Punishment
In operant conditioning, positive and negative do not mean good and bad. Instead, positive means you are adding something, and negative means you are taking something away. Reinforcement means you are increasing a behavior, and punishment means you are decreasing a behavior. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, and punishment can also be ...
Negative Reinforcement: Definition, Examples, & Theory
The concept of negative reinforcement is informed by the theory of operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is a psychological theory of learning that was developed by psychologist B. F. Skinner in the mid-20th century. It is a form of what is known as associative learning in which a particular behavior is strengthened or weakened by the consequences that follow it (Staddon & Cerutti, 2003).
Negative Reinforcement (Definition + Examples)
Negative Reinforcement is when a stimulus is removed to increase a certain behavior. For example, if a young adult gets up early in the morning to avoid being last in the bathroom, they have increased a certain behavior to avoid the stimulus of waiting in the bathroom. ... Maybe the assignments are removed after four assemblies of good behavior ...
6.3 Operant Conditioning
In negative reinforcement, an undesirable stimulus is removed to increase a behavior. For example, car manufacturers use the principles of negative reinforcement in their seatbelt systems, which go "beep, beep, beep" until you fasten your seatbelt. The annoying sound stops when you exhibit the desired behavior, increasing the likelihood ...
7.2 Changing Behavior Through Reinforcement and Punishment: Operant
Give an example from daily life of each of the following: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment. Consider the reinforcement techniques that you might use to train a dog to catch and retrieve a Frisbee that you throw to it. Watch the following two videos from current television shows.
11.9: Reinforcement and Punishment
11.9: Reinforcement and Punishment. In discussing operant conditioning, we use several everyday words—positive, negative, reinforcement, and punishment—in a specialized manner. In operant conditioning, positive and negative do not mean good and bad. Instead, positive means you are adding something, and negative means you are taking ...
Negative Reinforcement Examples and Definition
Negative reinforcement is a behavioral psychology concept that involves the removal of an unpleasant stimulus after a desired behavior has been displayed. Simply put, negative reinforcement occurs when the removal of an aversive stimulus strengthens a behavior. For example, if a child is whining and a parent gives in to the child's demands to make the whining stop, removing the whining is a ...
Negative reinforcement: Definition and examples
Negative reinforcement is part of operant conditioning, which was a theory of learning that B. F. Skinner developed in the 1930s. Operant conditioning centers on the idea of reinforcement ...
Unlocking the Power of Negative Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning
Negative reinforcement in the workplace is a technique that involves removing an unpleasant stimulus immediately after a desired behavior is exhibited. This technique encourages a specific behavior to be repeated in the future. Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment, but the two are different.
PDF Reinforcement: Positive Versus Negative
When we think of reinforcement, we typically think of what is referred to as positive reinforcement (e.g., giving a student a sticker for completing an assignment, giving a thumbs up for not talking in the hallway). Positive reinforcement involves providing a desired consequence after a student
Negative Reinforcement in Psychology
Negative reinforcement is a component of behavioral studies in psychology surrounding the ideas of reinforcement and punishment. ... the teacher will take away the homework assignment. The ...
Motivating Operations and Negative Reinforcement
Michael's Early Analysis of MOs and Negative Reinforcement. In Michael's original reintroduction of the MO (then termed "establishing operation" [EO]) concept, he focused on distinguishing between discriminative and reinforcer-effectiveness-altering (i.e., motivational) functions of stimuli.Michael argued that a stimulus whose offset would function as a reinforcer (e.g., shock offset ...
Learning through Reinforcement or Punishment
Adapted from Figure 4-3 (Ormrod, 2004, p. 61) Negative Reinforcement Example. Scenario — Karen always does her homework assignments as soon as she gets them so she won't have to worry about ...
Negative Reinforcement Examples In the Workplace
Negative reinforcement is the direct opposite of positive reinforcement, which involves the addition of a motivating or reinforcing factor used to encourage a specific type of behavior. Both have advantageous uses in the workplace. Positive reinforcement could include offering a bonus to employees for completing a project by a certain date.
Is Negative Reinforcement Helpful? Understanding Conditioning And
Negative reinforcement means removing a stimulus or operant behavior to reinforce a current or new desirable behavior or prevent a negative outcome. In some cases, negative reinforcement can be helpful, such as putting on sunscreen to avoid sunburn or putting away your phone to focus on an assignment.
Reinforcement in Psychology: Definition and Examples
In psychology, reinforcement refers to a process where behavior is strengthened or increased by the presentation or removal of a stimulus. Reinforcement is a key concept in behaviorism, a school of psychology that emphasizes the role of the environment in shaping behavior.. According to behaviorists, behavior is learned through the consequences that follow it, and reinforcement is an essential ...
Positive AND Negative Reinforcement Week 5 Assignment
Similarities Both positive and negative reinforcement are elicited by a stimulus, each reinforcement needs a stimulus to be added or removed to take effect (Miltenberger, 2016, pg. 70). In both positive and negative reinforcement as it occurs a behavior increases (Miltenberger, 2016 pg. 70).
What Is Negative Reinforcement And Does It Really Work?
According to Skinner, an aversive stimulus is an "unpleasant event intended to decrease the probability of a behavior when presented as a consequence (i.e., punishment). However, an aversive stimulus may also increase the probability of a behavior when it is removed as a consequence, and in this way, it will function as negative reinforcement
Positive and Negative Punishment (Week 6)
Week 6 assignment positive and negative punishment stephanie dunbar capella university psy 7708: basic foundations in applied behavior analysis dr. bryan blair. Skip to document. ... Positive and Negative Reinforcement Punishment is a fundamental principle of behavior (Cooper et al., 2019). Punishment is defined as the immediate response that ...
Week 5 assignment
Instructor: Laura Stolfi Week 5 assignment May 15, 2022. Abstract. Positive reinforcement is most utilized in the three speculations to empower wanted conduct. Negative support is utilized to beat undesirable ways of behaving down. ... Why each example will increase behavior in the future -- - this relates back to the definition of negative ...
PDF CS234: Reinforcement Learning
Kavosh Asadi and Michael L. Littman. An alternative softmax operator for reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70, pages 243-252, 2017. Michael L. Littman. Algorithms for Sequential Decision-Making. PhD thesis, Brown University, 1996. Michael L. Littman and Csaba Szepesv´ari.
SWAT preparing to negotiate with alleged West El Paso shooter
UPDATE: El Paso Police have said they have secured the area near Escondido Drive and Palmary Drive. They are currently preparing a crisis response team to contact and attempt negotiations with the ...
EPCC Computer Science students attend global symposium for their ...
Two EPCC Computer Science students, Ivan Alonso and Emilian Garcia, took their winning assignment, "The Fingerprint Assignment: An Interdisciplinary Assessment for CS I Education" at the Technical ...

What Is Negative Reinforcement?

Key Takeaways

How Does It Work?

Types of Negative Reinforcement

Escape Learning

Avoidance Learning

How is it different than punishment?

Negative reinforcement is not the opposite of positive reinforcement

In the classroom

Effectiveness

Further Reading

Understanding Negative Reinforcement

What is negative reinforcement?

Examples of negative reinforcement

Is negative reinforcement good for kids?

Positive vs. negative reinforcement

Is negative reinforcement the same as punishment?

Important note

Let’s recap

Read this next

How Negative Reinforcement Works

How Does Negative Reinforcment Work?

Effectiveness

Examples of Negative Reinforcement

Negative vs. Positive Reinforcement

Negative Reinforcement vs. Punishment

Uses for Negative Reinforcement

Psychotherapy

Benefits of Negative Reinforcement

Potential Pitfalls of Negative Reinforcement

A Word From Verywell

Reinforcement and Punishment

Reinforcement

Link to Learning

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

Everyday Connection: Behavior Modification in Children

Think It Over

Share This Book

Grab Our Free eBook to Learn How to Grow Your Wellness Business Exponentially!

Examples of Negative Reinforcement

Negative Reinforcement vs. Positive Reinforcement

The Negative Reinforcement Trap​

Negative Reinforcement in the Workplace

Articles Related to Negative Reinforcement

Books Related to Negative Reinforcement

Final Thoughts on Negative Reinforcement​

Don't Forget to Grab Our Free eBook to Learn How to Grow Your Wellness Business Exponentially!

Negative Reinforcement (Definition + Examples)

What is Negative Reinforcement?

Examples of Negative Reinforcement in Psychology

Continuous vs. Partial Negative Reinforcement

Reinforcement Schedules

Variable-ratio

Fixed-interval

Variable-interval

Is Negative Reinforcement Effective? Exploring Ethical and Long-Term Implications

Long-Term Impacts: Unveiling "Learned Helplessness"

Alternatives to Negative Reinforcement: A Multifaceted Approach

Related posts:

About The Author

Psychology Resources

Psychology Tests

6.3 Operant Conditioning

Link to Learning

Reinforcement

Primary and Secondary Reinforcers

Everyday Connection

Reinforcement Schedules

Connect the Concepts

Cognition and Latent Learning

This Place Is Like a Maze

7.2 Changing Behavior Through Reinforcement and Punishment: Operant Conditioning

How Reinforcement and Punishment Influence Behavior: The Research of Thorndike and Skinner

Video Clip: Thorndike’s Puzzle Box

Creating Complex Behaviors Through Operant Conditioning

Key Takeaways

Exercises and Critical Thinking

11.9: Reinforcement and Punishment

Learning Objectives

Reinforcement

The Negative Reinforcement Trap

Final Thoughts on Negative Reinforcement