Negative effects of positive reinforcement.

Perone (2003) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. He asked: can a so-called positive reinforcer hurt the client? He listed ways it can—satiation, coercion, dependency, accidental punishment. He also argued the old positive-vs-negative reinforcement split hides more than it helps.

The paper gives no new data. Instead it gives a warning: if the learner’s behavior or mood gets worse after you “reward” them, the reward itself may be the problem. Check for satiation, loss of choice, or subtle aversives hidden in the contingency.

Perone (2023) extends the same worry to punishment. He says reinforcement-only plans sometimes fail so badly that painful punishment may become the ethical option. The two papers share one theme: blind faith in any consequence can backfire.

Bland et al. (2018) experimentally echo the warning. They showed that a simple S– (extinction cue) can punish pigeons’ key pecks. A stimulus once called “neutral” acted like a punisher—real-world proof that valence flips.

Vollmer et al. (1996) supply an infant lab example. When pleasant sounds were paired with voices, babies babbled more; when paired with mild noise, babbling dropped. Pleasant stimuli can help or hurt depending on context, just as Michael predicted.

Next time you run a token board or praise schedule, watch what happens. If the child stalls, escapes, or looks miserable, pause. You may be flooding them with “good” things they now want to avoid. Thin the schedule, offer choice, or switch reinforcers before the fallout hardens.