Summary:

Procedures classified as positive reinforcement are generally regarded as more desirable than those classified as aversive—those that involve negative reinforcement or punishment. However, this is a simplistic measure of the desirability of a procedure to change or maintain behavior. Problems can be identified based on theory, experimental analysis, and practical case considerations. Theoretically, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement has proven difficult (some might even argue that the distinction is untenable). When this distinction is made purely on operational terms, experiments reveal that positive reinforcement can have aversive functions. On a practical level, positive reinforcement can lead to deleterious effects and is implicated in a range of personal and societal problems. These issues challenge us to identify other criteria for evaluating behavioral procedures.

Inevitability of Aversive Control: Aversive control is unavoidable because every positive reinforcement can also be viewed as a negative reinforcement from another perspective.

Positive Reinforcement Perception: Positive reinforcement is generally seen as more desirable than negative reinforcement or punishment. However, the desirability of these procedures isn't always clear-cut.

Challenges in Distinction: The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is theoretically difficult and sometimes untenable. Experiments show that positive reinforcement can also have aversive functions.

Practical Concerns: Positive reinforcement can lead to negative consequences in both personal and societal contexts, challenging its perceived benign nature.

Aversive Control Inevitability: Aversive control is an inherent and unavoidable part of behavioral control. Even procedures typically viewed as positive reinforcement contain elements of negative reinforcement or punishment.

Function-Based Definitions: The classification of stimuli as aversive or reinforcing should be based on function rather than structure. For instance, a stimulus like an electric shock might not always be aversive, depending on the context.

Empirical Difficulties: Experiments show that it can be difficult to empirically distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in human behavior, which complicates the application of these concepts in practice.

Sidman's Critique: While Sidman criticized aversive control for its negative side effects, his endorsement of positive reinforcement might be too broad, as positive reinforcement can also have delayed aversive consequences.

Skinner's Observations: B.F. Skinner noted that behaviors reinforced positively might have negative consequences that are hard to address because they occur later and do not immediately generate avoidance behavior.

Aversive Functions of Positive Reinforcement: Positive reinforcement can have aversive functions, as seen in experiments where stimuli associated with less frequent reinforcement can suppress behavior.

Higher Standards for Behavioral Interventions: Decisions on behavioral control methods should focus more on long-term outcomes rather than whether they involve positive reinforcement or aversive control.

Download below: