A test of the reinforcing properties of stimuli correlated with nonreinforcement.
A cue that only signals non-reinforcement does not become a reinforcer for pigeons, though it can for humans.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons in a small chamber.
A key lit up before each trial.
If grain was coming, the key turned green.
If no grain was coming, the key turned red.
The birds could peck a second key to see the color early.
The question: would the red signal make them peck more, just because it gives information?
What they found
Only the green signal kept the birds pecking.
The red signal did nothing.
Even though red told them what would happen, it had no reinforcing power.
How this fits with other research
Winett et al. (1972) ran the same setup four years earlier and got the same null result.
Together, the two papers show that a signal for "no food" never reinforces observing in pigeons.
Locurto et al. (1980) found the opposite with college students.
People pressed a button to see a red light that meant "no money."
They kept pressing, so for humans the bad-news cue did reinforce behavior.
The clash disappears when you note the species: pigeons ignore information alone; humans don’t.
Why it matters
When you design conditional-discrimination tasks, pair the S-delta with something useful.
A red card that only says "wrong" will not maintain attending.
Add a brief timeout or an alternate prompt so the stimulus gains value.
Check your learner’s species, too.
A child may keep looking at error cues for social feedback, while a pigeon will simply stop.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put a brief, useful event right after the error stimulus so the S-delta can support attending.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The information hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement predicts that a stimulus that "reduces uncertainty" about the outcome of a trial will acquire reinforcing properties, even when the stimulus reliably predicts nonreinforcement. Four pigeons' key pecks produced one of two 5-sec stimuli with 0.50 probability according to a discriminated variable-interval schedule. One stimulus was followed by reinforcement; a second stimulus was followed by blackout. To the same extent, therefore, both stimuli reduced uncertainty about the possibility that food would arrive at the termination of the schedule interval. When a second key in the chamber was lighted, each peck on it could produce the stimulus preceding reinforcement, the stimulus preceding nonreinforcement, a novel stimulus, or no stimulus, across separate conditions. The stimulus preceding food maintained responding at substantial levels on the second, stimulus-producing, key. Such responding was not maintained by other stimuli. These data, replicated when the stimuli were reversed on the variable-interval schedule, do not support the prediction that uncertainty-reducing stimuli are necessarily conditioned reinforcers.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.26-45