Reinforcement of human observing behavior by a stimulue correlated with extinction or increased effort.

The researchers asked adults to press keys for colored lights. Some lights meant money was coming. Other lights meant no money or extra work.

They compared two setups. One key showed both good and bad lights. The other key showed only the good light. They counted how often each key was pressed.

People pressed the key that showed both lights more often. Even the “bad” light that signaled no reward made the key more attractive.

The negative stimulus became a reinforcer. Seeing bad news was worth working for.

Winett et al. (1972) and Hymowitz (1976) ran similar tests with pigeons. Those birds ignored stimuli linked to extinction. The new human data seem opposite, but the difference is species: pigeons walked away while people wanted information.

Rilling et al. (1969) showed pigeons will peck a timeout key to escape an extinction cue. That study proves the same cue can be aversive. Together the papers show one stimulus can be both something to flee and something to watch, depending on the response required.

King et al. (2026) later used extinction cues to reduce relapse in humans. Their work extends the 1980 finding into therapy: if people willingly watch the cue, you can use it to signal extinction and protect new skills.

Your clients may seek “bad” information—checking for errors, asking if they failed, staring at timeout cards. That behavior is reinforced by the information itself. Instead of blocking the cue, use it. Let the extinction stimulus appear during differential reinforcement so the learner sees when problem behavior no longer pays. The cue now serves double duty: it feeds the observing drive and strengthens the new response.