Punishment of observing by the negative discriminative stimulus.
A "no-reward" signal alone can punish looking, so strip it out if you want more eye contact.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used a reversal ABAB design. They taught pigeons to peck a key to see colored lights.
One color, red, meant no food would come. The birds kept peeking anyway.
Next the researchers took the red light away whenever the bird peeked. They put it back in the next phase, then removed it again.
What they found
When the red light vanished after a peek, the birds peeked more. When the red light returned, peeking dropped.
The red light acted like a tiny electric shock: its mere presence punished the act of looking.
How this fits with other research
Barber et al. (1977) and Goldman et al. (1979) saw the same pattern with people. Losing money pushed button-pressing down, just like the red light pushed peeking down.
Harrison et al. (1975) looked at the flip side. They showed that escape from a bad cue keeps responding alive only if the escape also leads to good stuff. E et al. did not give good stuff; they only removed the bad cue, yet the behavior still rose.
Together the four studies draw a clear line: a signal for "no reward" can punish by itself, but its removal can briefly reinforce unless richer payoffs take over.
Why it matters
In your session, check what your cues really tell the client. A red "X," a buzzer, or a frown can suppress the very act of looking at you. If you want more attending, first remove those tiny punishers. Swap them for neutral or happy cues, then reinforce the first glance.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Spot and delete any visual or auditory cue that means "wrong" during attending trials; replace with neutral feedback and immediate praise for looking.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
To determine the effect of a negative discriminative stimulus on the response producing it, two pigeons were each studied in a three-key conditioning chamber. During alternating periods of unpredictable duration, pecking the center (food) key either was reinforced with grain on a variable-interval schedule or was never reinforced. On equal but independent variable-interval schedules, pecking either of the side (observing) keys changed the color of all keys for 30 sec from yellow to either green or red. When the schedule on the center key was variable-interval reinforcement, the color was green (positive discriminative stimulus); when no reinforcements were scheduled, the color was red (negative discriminative stimulus). Since pecking the side keys did not affect grain deliveries, changes in the rate of pecking could not be ascribed to changes in the frequency of primary reinforcement. In subsequent sessions, red was withheld as one of the possible consequences of pecking a given side key. When red was omitted, the rate on that key increased, and when red was restored, the rate decreased. It was concluded that red illumination of the keys, the negative discriminative stimulus, had a suppressive effect on the response that produced it.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.21-37