Publication
Michael Perone. Negative Effects of Positive Reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst 26:1–14 (2003). [23]
Summary of the author’s argument — paraphrase, not the original abstract
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.
The preceding summary paraphrases the paper’s abstract. [23]
Site context
Perone’s conceptual article uses laboratory examples, including pigeons escaping aspects of food-reinforcement schedules, to argue that behavioral procedures should be judged by their outcomes rather than their labels. [23]
His broader position on aversive control is an author argument, not a direct comparison of dog-training methods or evidence that all positive reinforcement is harmful or that aversive methods are harmless. [23]
Responses