Negative Reinforcement

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

Results of previous research indicate that the delivery of positive reinforcement (e.g., food) for an appropriate, alternative target response (e.g., compliance) or delivery of food on a time-based schedule can decrease problem behavior reinforced by escape, even when problem behavior continues to produce negative reinforcement (e.g., Lalli et al., ; Lomas, Fisher, & Kelley, ). In this study, we compared the levels of both compliance and problem behavior when food and praise were delivered either contingent on compliance or on a time-based schedule. Results for 3 of the 4 participants showed that contingent delivery of preferred edible items and praise was more effective in both reducing problem behavior and increasing compliance compared to variable-time delivery of these same items. These findings are discussed in the context of motivating operations and competition between positive and negative reinforcement.

Everyone, including children with developmental disabilities, encounters stimuli they find aversive every day (e.g., the sound of a classmate tapping their pencil). These aversive stimuli may not be problematic for typically developing individuals, because they learn to behave in ways that allow them to escape or avoid this aversive stimulation. They could, for example, mand (i.e., request) for something to be changed in the environment (e.g., ask their classmates to stop tapping their pencils). A child with developmental disabilities, however, may not have the communication skills necessary to request the termination of aversive stimuli, which may result in frequent exposure to aversive situations. For these children, it may be useful to acquire a general mand (e.g., saying, "No, thank you") which could be used to avoid or terminate a variety of aversive stimuli. Previous researchers teaching mands for negative reinforcement have focused on replacing problem behavior main...

The present work aimed to investigate the effects of contingent and “non-contingent” negative reinforcement on varying behavior (Experiment I), as well as the effects of two extinction procedures (Experiment II), on behavioral variability. In Experiment I, four experimentally naive male rats were exposed to discrete trial avoidance contingencies (Lag 1 and Yoke), according to the following design: Lag 1/Yoke/Lag1/Yoke. The general avoidance procedure included the presentation of 0.5-s, 0.4-mA electric shocks (US) on fixed time (FT) in the presence of a light (CS). Responses in the presence of the CS turned off the CS, sounded a 0.5-s, 10-dB tone, and avoided the next US programmed to be delivered. If the avoidance response was not emitted, the US was presented at the end of the FT, the CS remained unchanged, and a new trial was immediately initiated. Under the Lag 1 contingency, three-response sequences that differed from the last sequence emitted at the session avoided the US. Under the Yoke contingency, US cancellation was contingent on the emission of a three-response sequence, variable or not, following the same reinforcement distribution obtained in the last Lag session. In Experiment II, five experimentally naive male rats were exposed to the same avoidance-Lag 1 contingency employed in Experiment I and two extinction procedures (Ext 1 or 0), according to the following design: Lag 1/Ext 1/Lag 1/Ext 0/Lag 1/Ext 1/Lag 1/Ext 0/Lag 1. Three subjects were exposed to extinction procedures in reverse order. In both extinction procedures, the levers were inoperative, and responses had no scheduled consequence. Under the Ext 1, the US was delivered at the end of each trial. Under the Ext 0, the electrical stimulation generator remained off for the entire session. As a result, high variation levels were obtained under the Lag 1 contingency and low variation levels were obtained under the Yoke contingency and under both extinction procedures. On Lag 1 re-exposure, variation levels were lower in the Lag 1 phases post Ext 1 and higher in the Lag 1 phases post Ext 0 than those recorded at baseline. These results suggest that the varying behavior was controlled by the avoidance contingency and that the behavioral variability may be extinguished by suspending the contingency between the varying behavior and its consequences.

Factors that influence choice between qualitatively different reinforcers (e.g., a food item or a break from work) are important to consider when arranging treatments for problem behavior. Previous findings indicate that children who engage in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands may choose a food item over the functional reinforcer during treatment (DeLeon, Neidert, Anders, & Rodriguez-Catter, 2001; Lalli et al., 1999). However, a number of variables may influence choice between concurrently available forms of reinforcement. An analogue for treatment situations in which positive reinforcement for compliance is in direct competition with negative reinforcement for problem behavior was used in the current study to evaluate several variables that may influence choice. Participants were 5 children who had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and who engaged in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands. In the first phase, the effects of task preference and schedule of reinforcement on choice between a 30-s break and a high-preference food item were evaluated. The food item was preferred over the break, regardless of the preference level of the task or the reinforcement schedule, for all but 1 participant. In the second phase, the quality of the break was manipulated by combining escape with toys, attention, or both. Only 1 participant showed preference for the enriched break. In the third phase, choice of a medium- or low-preference food item versus the enriched break was evaluated. Three of 4 participants showed preference for the break over the less preferred food item. Results extend previous research by identifying some of the conditions under which individuals who engage in escape-maintained behavior will prefer a food reinforcer over the functional one.

About 200 journal articles reported research on Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders in 2014. Here we briefly summarize a few of the reports that seemed most important or interesting, ranging from animal models to human studies. Readers can comment on our choices or provide their own favorites using the tools on the online article.

The objective of the current study was to compare the effects of sensory-integration therapy (SIT) and a behavioral intervention on rates of challenging behavior (including self-injurious behavior) in four children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. For each of the participants a functional assessment was conducted to identify the variables maintaining challenging behavior. Results of these assessments were used to design function-based behavioral interventions for each participant. Recommendations for the sensory-integration treatment were designed by an Occupational Therapist, trained in the use of sensory-integration theory and techniques. The sensory-integration techniques were not dependent on the results of the functional assessments. The study was conducted within an alternating treatments design, with initial baseline and final best treatment phase. For each participant, results demonstrated that the behavioral intervention was more effective than the sensory integration therapy in the treatment of challenging behavior. In the best treatment phase, the behavioral intervention alone was implemented and further reduction was observed in the rate of challenging behavior. Analysis of saliva samples revealed relatively low levels of cortisol and very little stress-responsivity across the SIT condition and the behavioral intervention condition, which may be related to the participants’ capacity to perceive stress in terms of its social significance.

Many animal and human subjects can learn to avoid punishment or noxious stimuli by exploiting the sensory cues predicting them. In cue-signaled active avoidance (AA) learning, subjects first learn about the predictive properties of cues and subsequently learn a behavioral strategy of an avoidance response (e.g., crossing a hurdle that divides a two-compartment cage in order to avoid a mild but unpleasant footshock). AA learning develops with fear reduction as an intervening variable. If execution of avoidance action
occurs on the pursuit of seeking safety, an overlap of recruitments of neurocircuitry essential for reward processing and for avoidance can be expected on the basis of two-process theory. Recent insights from two-way AA (2WAA) studies, which
integrate both Pavlovian and instrumental components, provide strong evidence for the recruitment of emotional circuitry centered on the amygdala and motivational circuitry centered around midbrain dopaminergic structures. In this review, we address the following: (1) the role of emotional neurocircuitry in the formation of AA, (2) the involvement of reward circuitry and its input-output pathways on AA, and (3) the possible serial and parallel processing within and between these circuitries.

Abstract  The potential of emotional interaction between human and computer has recently interested researchers in human–computer interaction. The instructional impact of this interaction in learning environments has not been established, however. This study examined the impact of emotion and gender of a pedagogical agent as a learning companion (PAL) on social judgements, interest, self-efficacy, and learning. Two experiments investigated separately the effects of a PAL's emotional expression and empathetic response. Experiment 1 focused on emotional expression (positive vs. negative vs. neutral) and gender (male vs. female) with a sample of 142 male and female college students in a computer literacy course. Experiment 2 investigated the impact of empathetic response (responsive vs. non-responsive) and gender with 56 pre-service teachers. Overall, the results yielded main and interaction effects of PAL emotion and gender on the dependent variables. In particular, the PAL's empathetic response had a positive impact on learner interest and self-efficacy; PAL gender had a positive impact on recall. The findings imply that the emotion and the gender of the digital learning companion could be utilized to optimize college students' motivation and learning.

To what extent do we learn from the positive versus negative outcomes of our decisions? The neuromodulator dopamine plays a key role in these reinforcement learning processes. Patients with Parkinson's disease, who have depleted dopamine in the basal ganglia, are impaired in tasks that require learning from trial and error. Here, we show, using two cognitive procedural learning tasks, that Parkinson's patients off medication are better at learning to avoid choices that lead to negative outcomes than they are at learning from ...

A procedure to study human operant conditioning is described using a timeout from a high-force requirement as reinforcer when a high force response was required. Experiment 1 reported evidence that a timeout from a high-force requirement acted as a reinforcer and a second experiment demonstrated sensitivity to delay to escape from the force requirement as a parameter of choice in a self-control paradigm. The results of the two experiments indicate a functional similarity between unconditioned reinforcers (e.g., food) used in nonhuman subjects and the present reinforcer, demonstrating that the present procedure is well-suited to study operant conditioning in humans.