A test of the negative discriminative stimulus as a reinforcer of observing.
A cue linked to extinction does not reinforce observing unless the learner values the information itself.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used a simple pigeon setup. A key stayed dark while the bird pecked for food.
After every 60 pecks the key flashed green or red for four seconds. Green meant more food was coming. Red meant no food.
The birds could peck a second key to see the color early. The question: would they pay to see red?
What they found
The pigeons pecked hard to see green. They ignored the red option.
The red cue told them bad news was coming, but that news had no value. Only the promise of food kept the observing response alive.
How this fits with other research
Locurto et al. (1980) got the opposite result. College students pressed a key to see a cue that signaled either extinction or extra work. They paid for the bad-news cue, something the pigeons would not do.
Hymowitz (1976) backs the pigeon data. A stimulus paired with non-reinforcement did not become a reinforcer when a new response was tested.
Rilling et al. (1969) adds a twist. Pigeons would peck a different key just to turn off the red cue. The same stimulus that failed to reinforce observing actually punished its presence.
Why it matters
When you design conditional-discrimination programs, pair the SΔ with something useful or neutral. If it only predicts extinction, learners may stop looking at it, or even try to escape it. Check for species or age differences: children sometimes work for information pigeons ignore. If attention fades during error correction, boost the value of the SΔ with tokens, praise, or a brief alternate activity so the stimulus itself stays in the learner’s world.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a brief token or praise 3 s after the SΔ appears so the ‘error’ cue itself gains conditioned value.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Five pigeons were used to test the hypothesis that the source of reinforcement for observing behavior is the information that it provides concerning the schedule of primary reinforcement. On a variable-interval schedule, pecking the left-hand key produced a 30-sec display of such information. During this 30-sec period, when pecking the right-hand key was reinforced on a random-interval schedule, both keys were green; when no reinforcement was scheduled (extinction) both keys were red. Later, this baseline procedure, in which both red and green were available, was replaced for blocks of sessions by procedures in which either (a) the red was eliminated and only the green could be produced; or (b) the green was eliminated and only the red could be produced. The results were that green maintained rates of pecking on the left key that were as high or higher than when both colors were available and that red maintained no responding. It was concluded that the reinforcing value of a stimulus depends on the positive or negative direction of its correlation with primary reinforcement, rather than upon the amount of information that it conveys.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1972 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1972.18-79