Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior.

Fantino et al. (2010) ran five quick lab tests with college students. They asked: will people press a button just to see bad news?

Each person could press to see a color. Green meant "you won money," red meant "you lost money," gray meant "no change." The team counted how often people pressed for each color.

People almost never pressed for red or gray. They only pressed when the color meant good news.

The result fits a simple rule: information itself is only reinforcing when it predicts something good.

Perez et al. (2015) found the same rule in pigeons. Birds picked a schedule that gave delay signals even when those signals later meant no food. Like the humans, the birds worked for the good-news signal, not the final outcome.

Geckeler et al. (2000) extended the idea to children with intellectual disability. Kids kept choosing a button that paid off only half the time because the lights next to it acted as tiny good-news signals. Again, the cue, not the cash, held the power.

McDevitt et al. (2016) later reviewed many studies and warned that good-news signals can accidentally strengthen poor choices. The Edmund finding is now part of a bigger picture: positive cues reinforce both useful and useless behavior.

If your client keeps looking at you, checking a device, or asking questions, they are pressing for news. Make sure the answer they get is a green light—clear praise, points, or a smile. Neutral feedback like "wait and see" or mild corrections can kill the response you want. Build your SDs so they always predict something good, and you will keep observing behavior strong without extra bribery.