Negative Reinforcement

Running Head: NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT 1

Negative Reinforcement:

A Review of the Literature

Cicely Irene Nickerson

Utah State University

NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT 2

Abstract

Negative reinforcement is an operant mechanism in which aversive stimuli are removed

contingent on a response. Aspects of negative reinforcement, including its comparison to

positive reinforcement and positive punishment, are explored as this article reviews current and

past research in both the applied and basic settings. The findings of each study are discussed,

and recommendations for future research are explored.

Keywords: avoidance, escape, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, positive

reinforcement,


Negative Reinforcement: A Review of the Literature

Much of human behavior is shaped by the consequences of those behavior. One

classification of those consequences is negative reinforcement. Contacting negative

reinforcement contingencies is a part of a typical day. Completing course evaluations is

negatively reinforced by escape from the continued emails from the university. Opening an

umbrella is negatively reinforced by avoidance of being wet. Pushing a button is negatively

reinforced by escape from a clock’s alarm. Wearing sunblock is negatively reinforced by

avoidance of sunburns. As seen in these examples, negative reinforcement is characterized by

the removal of a stimulus from the environment contingent on a response. There are two basic

types of negative reinforcement, escape and avoidance. Postponing or preventing stimuli from

presentation is termed avoidance. Removal of stimuli is categorized as escape.

Negative reinforcement is an important tool for behavior analysts. It has been used to

study “acquisition, maintenance, extinction, and stimulus control” (Iwata, 1987). Negative

reinforcement can also serve as the function for aberrant behavior. In a meta-analysis, Iwata et

al. (1994) found that social-negative reinforcement was the most common function for self-

injurious behavior. Studies that employ or focus on negative reinforcement have been conducted

for many years.

An early study using negative reinforcement demonstrated its effectiveness in the

acquisition of behavior. This early basic research study was conducted by Solomon & Wynne

(1953). The purpose was to study the acquisition and extinction of jumping as an avoidance

behavior in a modified shuttle box. The shuttle box was made of two compartments which were

separated by a barrier. The floor of each compartment had a steel grid which could be electrified

independent of the other side. Dogs that had no known history as research subjects were used in


this study. Following baseline and an acclimatization period, each dog was exposed to the

acquisition procedure. During each session, a light in the shuttle box was lit for ten seconds. At

the end of the ten seconds, the grid on the floor of the shuttle box was electrified, thus shocking

the subject. Shocking continued until the dog had jumped or climbed over the barrier to the

other side of the shuttle box where the floor was not electrified. Trials were counted as ‘escape’

if the dog was shocked prior to jumping over the barrier, and counted as ‘avoidance’ if the dog

was not shocked prior to jumping over the barrier. After each of the dogs had acquired the

response, they were exposed to an extinction phase where no shocks were given. Solomon et al.

state, “We had expected these dogs to extinguish spontaneously. . . . Instead, the experimenters

found themselves running the animals day after day with no signs of extinction” (p. 291).

This early study shows that behavior that is maintained through negative reinforcement,

especially those behavior which are linked to traumatic experiences, are highly resistant to

extinction. In addition, Solomon et al. found that even after the behavior had been successfully

put on extinction, it was not unusual for the behavior to spontaneously recover. Of course, one

very significant limitation to this study is the severity of the stimuli used. It is expected that the

acquisition of behavior in a similar study which used stimuli of a milder nature would be less

resilient to extinction.

Perhaps partially as a result of the adverse side-effects which have accompanied studies

involving negative reinforcement in the basic setting, not much research has been done in the

applied setting. More than 30 years ago, Iwata (1987) called for this to change. He stated,

“research on negative reinforcement provides one of the clearest and most immediately relevant

examples of a case in which consideration, replication, and extension of basic research would

benefit the applied area” (p. 361). Since that time, there has been a slight increase in the research


dedicated to negative reinforcement, but much more is needed. This article explores some

possible directions for future research as it discusses current and past studies in both the basic

and applied settings.

Discussion

Escape and Avoidance

Negative reinforcement is divided into two categories: escape and avoidance. In an escape

procedure, an aversive stimulus is terminated contingent on the subject’s behavior.

Comparatively, the subject’s behavior in an avoidance procedure delays or deletes the imminent

occurrence of an aversive stimulus. To be clear, for avoidance the behavior occurs prior to the

presentation of a stimulus, resulting in postponement or cancellation. For escape, the behavior

occurs during the presentation of the stimulus, resulting in its removal.

It can be difficult to determine whether a behavior is reinforced by escape from stimuli or

avoidance of stimuli. Thompson, Bruzek, and Cotnoir-Bichelman (2011) found that both

escape-type negative reinforcement and avoidance-type negative reinforcement maintained

infant care-giving behavior. The purpose of their study was to demonstrate that findings in

simulations of care-giving in a laboratory setting could be applied to clinical settings and

treatment programs. Eleven typically developing university students were observed in a small

room through a one-way mirror. Each student was told they were part of a simulated care-giving

experiment and given charge of a baby doll with the instruction to “do what comes

naturally.” Participants also had access to a crib, blanket, and, in some cases, toys and a

bottle. Also present in the room was a tape player with a recording of a crying baby. This

recording served as the independent variable and was turned on and off by the experimenters in

the adjoining room. A specific topography of care-giving behavior (i.e. feeding, playing, or


rocking) was targeted as the dependent variable in each phase of the reversal design. During

each session of the study, the recording of a baby’s cry would play until and unless the target

behavior was exhibited. All of the participants engaged in the target behavior which stopped the

crying. When new sessions were started, the participants continued to engage in that behavior to

avoid the crying. The initial engagement in the target behavior is an example of escape

maintained behavior. The continuation of that behavior is an example of avoidance maintained

behavior. In addition to what was previously mentioned, nine of the eleven participants

discontinued the target behavior when it was no longer paired with reinforcement. The

remaining two participants did not meet the criterion for moving past the extinction phase

because they continued to engage in the care-giving behavior that was targeted in the initial

phase of the experiment even though it was no longer being reinforced. However, when an

alternate care-giving behavior resulted in negative reinforcement, both participants engaged in

the new target behavior and discontinued the previous target behavior. The authors conclude

that, “caregiver behavior is, at least in part, under the control of negative reinforcement” (p.

303). They continue by adding that other contingencies are most likely in place, but those

contingencies were not the focus of this particular study. This study also evidences that negative

reinforcement influences the behavior of individuals in day-to-day situations, and as such,

additional research should be done to add to our limited knowledge.

Negative and Positive Reinforcement

Moving to a broader picture of behavior change, there is also a difference between

negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement and positive

reinforcement are similar in that, in either case, the response being reinforced has an increased

probability of occurring in the future. However, for positive reinforcement it is the presentation


of a stimulus that acts as a reinforcer, while for negative reinforcement it is the removal of a

stimulus that acts as a reinforcer. Not only are they procedurally different, but positive and

negative reinforcement have different effects.

Bouxsein, Roane, and Harper (2011) compared positive and negative reinforcement as

treatments for the increase of compliance to instructional tasks. The participant was a fourteen-

year-old boy with Down syndrome who displayed non-compliant behavior. The sessions were

run in a room that contained a garbage can and pieces of crumpled paper. The participant was

instructed to pick up pieces of paper and put them in the garbage can. Completion of this

instruction was measured as the dependent variable. The study followed a reversal design in

which different phases were characterized by different types of reinforcement. Those types were

(a) negative reinforcement in the form of a 60-second break, (b) positive reinforcement, in this

case access to music for 60-seconds with the continuation of demands, and (c) a combination of

positive and negative reinforcement, where both access to music and a break from demands were

given for 60-seconds. In phases where compliance resulted in access to music for 60-seconds

with the continuation of demands, compliance percentages increased slightly. Interestingly,

compliance percentages decreased in the phases where compliance resulted in a 60-second

break. This means that a 60-second break did not function as negative reinforcement for this

participant. For this study, the combination of positive and negative reinforcement for

compliance to instructions was the most effective at increasing compliance. One possible

explanation for these results is that the value of the reinforcer was greater during phases where

both access to music and a break from demands were given. Also, the authors do not inform the

reader whether the non-compliant behavior for which the participant was referred was

maintained by positive or negative reinforcement. Certainly, if the behavior’s function was to


access music, and not to escape demands, the data would show greater compliance during phases

where access to music was given. Nevertheless, it is of value that even when escape was not

negatively reinforcing for this participant, the addition of escape from demands to a positive

reinforcer increased compliance.

DeLeon, Neidert, Anders & Rodriguez-Catter (2001) conducted another study comparing

the effects of positive and negative reinforcement schedules on compliance. This study targeted

the value of positive versus negative reinforcement as schedules of reinforcement were

thinned. Participant preference was also evaluated. The participant in this study was a ten-year-

old girl with autism whose aberrant behavior was determined to be escape maintained. The

independent variable used in this study was type of reinforcement (positive vs. negative) earned

for compliance to demands. The dependent variables were rate of aberrant behavior and

compliance. Following a functional analysis, a combined multi-element and reversal design was

used for treatment. In the baseline condition academic demands were given in a sequential

prompting order (verbal, gestural, physical), and aberrant behavior resulted in a 30-second break

from demands. After baseline, sessions in which positive reinforcement (potato chip) was

available and sessions where negative reinforcement (30-second break) was available were

alternated and compared in terms of their influence on compliance. Both positive and negative

reinforcement were delivered on an FR1 schedule during this phase, and aberrant behavior

continued to result in a 30-second break from demands. After a short return to baseline, the two

elements were again compared. Both remained at an FR1 schedule. In the final phase, aberrant

behavior no longer resulted in a break from demands. Additionally, the participant was allowed

to choose between the positive reinforcer and the negative reinforcer after she had complied with

instructions. Thinning of the reinforcement schedule also began during this phase. The results


of the comparison at an FR1 schedule were similar to those of Bouxsein, Roane, and Harper

(2011). Sessions where compliance was positively reinforced were marked by near-zero rates of

problem behavior and high percentages of compliance. Sessions where compliance was

negatively reinforced showed minimal reduction in problem behavior and only some change in

percentages of compliance. However, in the third phase, as the schedule of reinforcement was

thinned, the participant began to choose the negative reinforcer more frequently. This implies

that while positive reinforcement may be preferred during rich schedules of reinforcement, as

schedules are thinned, the value of negative reinforcement in the form of escape from demands

increases.

This study was replicated by Kodak, Lerman, Volkert & Trosclair (2007) for five

children with autism. Functional analyses for these participants indicated that problem behavior

was maintained, at least in part, by escape from demands. For four of the five participants,

positive reinforcement (edible) was preferred over negative reinforcement (break from demands)

even when schedules were thinned. It should be noted, however, that when negative

reinforcement was enriched to include positive reinforcement in the form of toys and attention

the participants still preferred the edible reinforcer. This could mean that positive reinforcement

was chosen instead of negative reinforcement, not because positive reinforcement as a whole is

more effective, but because the particular edible used was viewed as very valuable by the

participants. This conjecture is supported by data from three of the participants that show when

the edible was switched for a less preferred edible, the participant preferred the break.

Additional studies which compare positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement

have found varying results. For the most part these studies show that positive reinforcement is

more effective at increasing compliance and reducing problem behavior (e.g. Carter, 2010; Lalli,


et al., 1999). However, there are studies, and participants within studies that stand as evidence

that negative reinforcement can be more effective in some cases (Kodak, Lerman, Volkert, &

Trosclair, 2007; Zarcone, Fisher, & Piazza, 1996).

Aversive Control

Just as particular aspects of negative reinforcement match aspects of positive

reinforcement, negative reinforcement shares common features of punishment. Consequently,

negative reinforcement falls into a category termed ‘aversive control.’ The term ‘aversive

control’ is not always clear. In most definitions it includes negative reinforcement and positive

punishment (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). As you will recall, negative reinforcement is

when an aversive stimulus is removed contingent on a response. Positive punishment occurs

when an aversive stimulus is presented contingent on a response. By some definitions aversive

control also includes negative punishment (Catania, 1998). In negative punishment, a preferred

stimulus is removed contingent on a response. For purposes of this article, aversive control will

include positive punishment and negative reinforcement. An early basic research study

conducted by Lockard (1969) compared effects of negative reinforcement and positive

punishment on the acquisition of a new skill (pulling a lever) via shaping. Twenty-four rhesus

monkeys participated in the first procedure where negative reinforcement was used. In this

procedure, shocks were scheduled to be delivered every five seconds. Shocks were delayed

contingent on the participant emitting the next behavior in the shaping chain. All of the monkeys

finished this procedure. An additional procedure using positive punishment was run with six

rhesus monkeys. In this procedure shock was delivered each time the participant moved away

from the lever. Although no data were reported, the authors state that these subjects struggled to

learn the response of pulling the lever, and some subjects stopped moving all together. For those


subjects who stopped moving, the method was altered where all behavior except moving toward

the lever were punished, but this did not improve training. The authors concluded that negative

reinforcement is more effective when teaching a new behavior than positive punishment. This

could occur because during negative reinforcement only one behavior evokes consequences, in

comparison to positive punishment where all but one behavior result in the consequence. In this

way, negative reinforcement teaches the correct response and positive punishment does not.

Effective Negative Reinforcement

The effectiveness of negative reinforcement, as with positive reinforcement and

punishment, can be influenced by other factors including the quality of the reinforcement, the

immediacy of the removal of the aversive stimulus after emission of the behavior, the

consistency with which the behavior evokes reinforcement, and the unavailability of

reinforcement through other behaviors.

An example of one of these methods for effective use of negative reinforcement is shown

in a study of seat belt usage systems. Geller, Casali, & Johnson (1980) observed drivers as they

entered and exited university parking lots, and collected data on escape and avoidance

maintained seatbelt-wearing behavior. As each driver approached the exit to the parking lot, he

was stopped by a data collector and asked a few survey questions. The data collector noted

whether the driver was wearing a seatbelt, or if the car’s seat belt usage system had been

bypassed in any way. Seat belt usage systems included any combination of lights, buzzers, or

ignition interlocks that were designed to discontinue when the driver’s seatbelt was in use. Data

collectors also asked the driver questions about his seat belt usage and the car’s seatbelt

system. Additionally, drivers were asked to complete a paper survey and mail it to

campus. Nearly 42% of drivers whose cars had a seat belt usage system had bypassed that


system. Of those drivers who had defeated the system, approximately 16% were wearing a

seatbelt at the time of the survey. Drivers of cars where the seat belt usage systems were still

intact were nearly 3 ½ times as likely to be wearing a seatbelt.

In this sample, participants whose cars had a seat belt usage system could receive

negative reinforcement for seat belt wearing behavior. However, only 33% of those participants

were actually wearing seatbelts. It could be argued that a possible reason for low percentages of

seat belt wearing behavior may be that drivers have not yet left the parking lot, and may typically

buckle up upon leaving those areas. However, this low percentage is more likely due to the

availability of reinforcement through alternate behavior, namely sabotage of the car’s seatbelt

usage system. Unlike the example of seatbelt systems, effective negative reinforcement

procedures do not allow for reinforcement to be available through alternate behavior.

Conclusion

Despite the widespread prevalence of escape and avoidance maintained behavior,

research and knowledge in applied settings are limited. An extremely small amount is known

about negative reinforcement, especially when compared to its sister operant mechanism,

positive reinforcement. Although it can be difficult to separate, we are aware that negatively-

reinforced behavior falls under either escape-maintained behavior or avoidance-maintained

behavior. However, partially because these categories are difficult to parse, we do not know

much about their individual characteristics. Because much of early research focused on

avoidance behavior, we do know more about it than escape, but it is not clear whether the things

basic research has demonstrated can be used in applied and clinical settings. More research

comparing the two types of negative reinforcement should be conducted in the applied field in

order to solidify the techniques and knowledge that are a part of basic research.


Although the majority of research suggests that it negative reinforcement is not as

effective as positive reinforcement for behavior change, we do know that the addition of negative

reinforcement to positive reinforcement contingencies can enhance the value of

reinforcement. We also know that, in some cases, negative reinforcement alone can be more

effective than positive reinforcement. The most recent research does not support theories that

problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement should be paired with treated by

teaching a replacement behavior that is also negatively reinforced. In fact, current research is

beginning to suggest that the continued reinforcement of negatively reinforced problem behavior

paired with positive reinforcement for compliant behavior is as successful, if not more successful

than any other combination of contingencies (Lalli et al., 1999). To date, research has no

explanation for why negative reinforcement is more successful in some cases and not in

others. This may be a question for future research.

That we don’t know much about aversive control can make decisions concerning its use

exceptionally difficult. Again, much of what we do know is from basic research. As a general

rule, aversive control, and consequently negative reinforcement, has been avoided in both

applied research and clinical settings. Yet, there are some circumstances, although rare, when

aversive control seems to be the most effective and ethical option. In order to ensure that

decisions being made at this level are based on best practice instead of chance or feeling,

research in the applied field must take the information that has been found in basic research and

extend it.

A considerable amount of what is known concerning negative reinforcement is based on

a handful of studies. While the research and publication of articles involving negative

reinforcement has greatly increased since Iwata’s call for change thirty years ago, the pool of


knowledge from which practice draw from is meager. Building on current and past research is

essential to the growth of applied behavior analysis.


References

Bouxsein, K. J., Roane, H. S., and Harper, T. (2011). Evaluating the separate and combined

effects of positive and negative reinforcement on task compliance. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 44, 175-179.

Carter, S. L. (2010). A comparison of various forms of reinforcement with and without

extinction as treatment for escape-maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied


Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

DeLeon, I. G., Neidert, P. L., Anders, B. M., and Rodriguez-Catter, V. (2001). Choices between

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

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 521-525.

Geller, S. E., Casali, J. G., and Johnson, R. P. (1980). Seat belt usage: A potential target for

applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 669-675.

Iwata, B. A. (1987). Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis: An emerging

technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 361-378.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Dorsey, M. F., Zarcone, J. R., Vollmer, T. R., Smith, R. G., . . . Willis,

K. D. (1994). The functions of self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 27, 215-240.

Kodak, T., Lerman, D. C., Volkert, V. M., and Trosclair, N. (2007). Further examination of

factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 25-44.


Lalli, J. S., Vollmer, T. R., Progar, P. R., Wright, C., Borrero, J., Daniel, D., . . . May, W. (1999).

Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape

behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 285-296.

Lockard, J. S. (1969). Shaping avoidance behavior in restrained monkeys. Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 649-652.

Solomon, R.L., Kamin, L.J., and Wynne, L.C. (1953). Traumatic avoidance learning: The

outcomes of several extinction procedures with dogs. The Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 48, 291-302.

Thompson, R. H., Bruzek, J. L., and Cotnoir-Bichelman, N. M. (2011). The role of negative

reinforcement in infant caregiving: An experimental simulation. Journal of Applied


Zarconne, J. R., Fisher, W. W., and Piazza, C. C. (1996). Analysis of free-time contingencies as

positive versus negative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 247-

250.

Negative Reinforcement

Documents

Transcript of Negative Reinforcement