A role for negative reinforcement of response omission in punishment?

Green et al. (1987) worked with pigeons that pecked a key for food.

The birds earned food on a VI schedule.

While the schedule stayed the same, the team added mild electric shock for every peck.

They then changed only one thing: how long the bird had to wait after a shock before another peck would avoid the next shock.

Longer required pauses meant more time doing nothing.

The question: does this forced pause act like negative reinforcement for not responding?

When the required pause grew, the birds pecked less.

Shock size never changed, yet response rates kept falling.

The pause itself seemed to be the payoff.

The authors say punishment looked strong because silence was being reinforced.

Zeiler (1977) already showed that paying birds for short breaks cut pecking better than shock.

L et al. now fit that idea inside the punishment moment: the break is the hidden paycheck.

Kruper (1968) and Davison et al. (1968) saw equal suppression across rich and lean VI parts.

They blamed the shock alone.

L et al. reply: check the pause length; it may be the real suppressor.

Van der Molen et al. (2010) later found money loss suppressed human button pressing.

Their data fit the same pattern: contingent cost lowers rate.

L et al.’s omission idea could explain why.

Before you say "the punisher worked," look at what the client gained by stopping.

If silence earns relief, you may be reinforcing omission, not punishing behavior.

Try shortening the enforced pause or adding reinforcement for appropriate responses.

Test both pieces: shock cost and break value.

You might get the same suppression with less aversive gear.