Does a negative discriminative stimulus function as a punishing consequence?
A stimulus that signals extinction can act as a gentle punisher.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bland and team worked with pigeons in a lab.
Each bird could peck two keys. One key gave food and a green light (S+). The other key gave food and a red light (S-).
Before the test, the red light had been paired with no food. Then the red light was given right after pecks on the food key. The team watched if the red light would act like a punisher.
What they found
When the red light followed pecks, the birds slowed down.
They also pecked the other key more often. The red light worked like a mild punisher even though it had never hurt them.
How this fits with other research
DARDANO et al. (1964) first showed that punishment can shift choice. They used electric shock. Bland et al. (2018) extends that work by showing a red light can do the same job without pain.
Deluty (1976) found that punishing one key can raise responding on another punished key. Bland’s birds did not show this odd rebound. The difference is that Z used real shock on both keys, while Bland used only the red light on one key.
Fontes et al. (2025) later showed that the old direct-suppression model fails when schedules change fast. Bland’s steady schedule fits the model, so the two studies do not clash; they just test different speeds.
Perone (2023) argues that severe cases may still need strong punishers. Bland gives clinicians a softer tool to try first.
Why it matters
You can now try an S- as a punisher before using stronger methods. Pair a red card or a brief “no” with extinction. Then present it right after the problem response. It may cut the behavior without pain.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one problem response. After it occurs, present a brief S- you have paired with no reinforcement. Count if the response drops over five sessions.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The study and use of punishment in behavioral treatments has been constrained by ethical concerns. However, there remains a need to reduce harmful behavior unable to be reduced by differential-reinforcement procedures. We investigated whether response-contingent presentation of a negative discriminative stimulus previously correlated with an absence of reinforcers would punish behavior maintained by positive reinforcers. Across four conditions, pigeons were trained to discriminate between a positive discriminative stimulus (S+) signaling the presence of food, and a negative discriminative stimulus (S-) signaling the absence of food. Once learned, every five responses on average to the S+ produced S- for a duration of 1.5 s. S+ response rate decreased for a majority of pigeons when responses produced S-, compared to when they did not, or when a neutral control stimulus was presented. In Condition 5, choice between two concurrently presented S+ alternatives shifted away from the alternative producing S-, despite a 1:1 reinforcer ratio. Therefore, presenting contingent S- stimuli punishes operant behavior maintained on simple schedules and in choice situations. Development of negative discriminative stimuli as punishers of operant behavior could provide an effective approach to behavioral treatments for problem behavior and subverting suboptimal choices involved in addictions.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2018 · doi:10.1002/jeab.444