DESCRIPTION OF THE CONCEPT

A negative reinforcer is a stimulus the withdrawal or escape from which, or the postponement,
termination, or avoidance of which, increases the probability of (i.e., strengthens) responses
that produce any of these events. Negative reinforcement (NR) is the descriptive label for the
relationship between the stimulus, the events, and the change in probability. NR is a
ubiquitous phenomenon, and examples of negatively reinforced behavior abound on every
scale of human (and infrahuman) existence. Some small-scale examples include scratching
irritated skin, pulling up the covers on a cold night, turning off an alarm, rolling up the car
windows while driving on a dusty road, using mouthwash, moving away from the campfire,
using sunscreen, visiting the bathroom before boarding an airplane, taking an antacid tablet
for heartburn, and wearing galoshes. Large-scale examples include the field of preventive
medicine (e.g., vaccinations, inoculations, hygienic maneuvers), disaster alert systems, flood
prevention and control, key rituals in the great religions (e.g., circumcision, ablutions,
penance), speed limits, and most aspects of the law. On a colloquial level, behavior whose
purpose is the reduction or avoidance of unwanted experience is said to be negatively
reinforced.
Despite its ubiquity and the long-standing and ready availability of its technical definition,
NR is probably the most misunderstood concept in behavioral psychology and one of the most
misunderstood in psychology at large. Relatedly, the most common misunderstanding is that
NR involves punishment. For example, a story published in the New Yorker magazine
described a punishing event as a negative reinforcer. When informed of the error, the editorial
staff replied that a definition equating NR with punishment was so prevalent in journalism
that it had become the de facto definition. Note, though, that this is true only in a colloquial
context; the definition offered in this entry remains correct for NR in a technical context.
That NR is difficult to understand is because it involves the absence of events, and it is
difficult to apprehend how the absence of an event can supply reinforcement. That NR is
widely equated with punishment is due in part to the word negative. In NR, however, the
word negative merely refers to any of a number of synonyms for escape or avoidance, not to
the aversive quality of an experience or event. In fact, the word closest in meaning to the
negative in NR is minus. Misconstruing NR with punishment also happens because the
production of NR depends on aversive events, and the most intuitively accessible perspective
on aversive events is that they punish (i.e., reduce the probability of) behaviors that bring
them about (e.g., once burned, twice shy).

Research Basis
The research base of NR includes several lines of investigation and hundreds of studies. As a
classic example, one of the earliest and abidingly most influential lines stems from the early
1950s and involves continuous avoidance or what has come to be called Sidman avoidance
(named after Murray Sidman, the scientist who published the initial research). Most of the
experiments involved laboratory animals, usually rats. Briefly, an animal was placed in a
laboratory chamber equipped with a response lever and an electric shock delivery device. Two
clocks were set to control shock delivery. The first clock timed a shock-shock (SS) interval,
the time between shocks when the animal did not depress the lever. The delivery of a shock
reset the SS clock to zero and started a new SS interval. The second clock timed a responseshock (RS) interval, the time shock was postponed when the lever was pressed. Each lever
press reset the RS clock to zero. Under these experimental conditions, animals routinely

learned the optimal number of lever presses to maintain a minimal number of shocks.
Theoretically, the animal could postpone shock indefinitely, merely by regularly pressing the
lever at RS intervals that were shorter than SS intervals. The illustrative point is that lever
pressing was maintained not by what happened afterward but by what did not happen or by
NR.
There are many variations on this theme. Initially, the relevant research involved only basic
science demonstrations, but by the late 1960s research showing the applied implications of
NR began to appear. Currently, a very large literature, composed of basic science experiments,
applied science derivations, and a diverse array of clinically relevant reports and anecdotes,
cogently shows the power and widespread availability of NR in the everyday life of human
beings and, indeed, all sentient beings.

Clinical Implications
There are two salient clinically relevant features of NR-maintained behavior: slow inception
and persistence.
Slow Inception
Because NR-maintained behavior fundamentally is behavior maintained by events that do not
happen, it can be difficult to inaugurate. For example, the animals in Sidman avoidance
experiments merely had to press a lever to postpone shocks. But their experience after
pressing the lever would involve no immediately detectable differences, and thus regular
pressing took some time to develop. Similarly, a broad array of health relevant, NRmaintained human behaviors involve no immediately detectable benefits. For example,
receiving vaccinations, taking vitamins, or eating vegetables produce few salubrious shortterm effects. However, contact with some of the aversive events that these behaviors usually
prevent can expedite the learning process. For example, the line for a flu shot is usually long
but rarely includes young children or even young adults. Young children typically have little
or no knowledge of the flu and are usually more concerned about the pain of the shot than
they are about being ill. Young adults have probably had the flu but survived it easily and thus
are often more concerned about the inconvenience of receiving the shot than its preventive
benefits. But the elderly have usually had experience with the debilitating effects of illnesses
such as the flu and probably know (or know of) persons who have died or nearly died from it.
Thus, they are usually more eager to receive the shot.
More generally, safety behaviors and preventive procedures are more likely to be established
and maintained by artificially established consequences (e.g., rules, penalties) than by
naturally occurring NR-type experiences. It simply takes too long for natural consequences
(i.e., NR) to shape some important health related behaviors.
Persistence
Once established, however, NR-maintained behavior can be very difficult to diminish or
extinguish. Clinically relevant examples are abundant. Painful bowel movements (e.g., due to
constipation) can establish a long-term pattern of stool withholding and toileting avoidance
that inevitably leads to encopresis, fecal impaction, and even an enlarged colon. These events
can then lead to further painful bowel movements and initiate a reciprocally perpetuating
system. Frightening encounters with an animal (e.g., dog) can cause children and even adults

to develop phobic levels of perpetual avoidance of large numbers or even classes of animals
(e.g., all dogs). Experiencing panic away from home, regardless of the inaugurating event, can
teach some people to never leave home (e.g., develop agoraphobia). The key (i.e., NR) result
of these avoidant behaviors is that unpleasant experience (e.g., pain, fear) does not occur as
long as the behaviors are maintained. And rather than function as an inducement to try
something new, extended periods of successful avoidance tend to reinforce continuation of the
avoidant pattern (e.g., As long as I press this lever, I don't get shocked, says the rat).
In a more general sense, there is an emerging literature suggesting that a major portion of
clinically significant concerns in human life involves an NR-pertinent construct called
experiential avoidance. Specifically, experiential avoidance involves behavior maintained by
the NR that results from the avoidance of experience perceived to be unpleasant. Although
there is tremendous survival value in avoiding some unpleasant experiences (e.g., avoiding
ingesting substances whose container is marked poison), in many other instances the
avoidance is of experiences that, although potentially unpleasant, actually add to rather than
subtract from the quality of a person's life. For example, the depressed person's limited
activities are maintained by NR resulting from the avoidance of everyday activities that,
although perceived by the person to be very unpleasant, are actually necessary for an
unimpaired, healthful life (e.g., eating, dealing with people, especially strangers, working).
The anxious person's limited repertoire is maintained by NR resulting from the avoidance of
activities that, although perceived to be dangerous, are not just physically harmless but can
actually be psychologically healthful (e.g., speaking to groups, being out in the open,
approaching animals). There are many other examples. The fundamental point is that NR is a
powerful element in many clinically relevant behaviors.

Clinical Applications
Although examples of clinical applications can readily be inferred from review of the material
above, explication of at least one representative application may be necessary for a fuller
understanding of the difficult concept of NR. A noteworthy example involves extreme selfinjurious behavior (SIB) exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. The
behavior is sometimes so extreme that bone structures can become misshapen and limbs can
actually be torn from the body. Historically, a common assumption was that SIB was
maintained by positive reinforcement, particularly attention. Because of its extraordinary and
often grotesque presentation, SIB can be very hard to ignore, and thus attention for it had been
universally present. Yet, some functional assessment techniques established by various
investigators, most notably Brian Iwata and Edward Carr, have produced data showing that
SIB is sometimes maintained by NR. From a slightly different and more colloquial
perspective, SIB can sometimes be viewed as a primitive but powerful communication to stay
away or, more generally, that the self-injurious person wants to avoid undesirable activities or
unwanted attention. The discovery of the counterintuitive but nonetheless real fact that
individuals exhibiting SIB may be doing so to avoid or escape something has resulted in
major changes to SIB treatment programs. As one general example, when a functional
assessment indicates that SIB has an avoidant or escapist function (i.e., is maintained by NR),
therapists establish training programs that allow afflicted individuals access to NR (e.g.,
avoidance or escape) in return for initially small but increasingly larger amounts of the
behaviors that previously led to SIB (e.g., interaction with staff, completion of tasks).
Experimental analyses of such interventions routinely show an abrupt, clinically significant
reduction in SIB.

There are myriad other examples of clinically relevant behavior maintained by NR, but those
involving SIB are particularly useful here because the profound presentation of the target
problem is emblematic of the potential power of NR in the establishment and maintenance of
human behavior.

CASE ILLUSTRATION
NR presents special opportunities for clinicians seeking strong influences on behavior but
who have limited access to events or objects that can be employed in a positive reinforcement
application. This case example is a demonstration.
The client, Tom, was a 14-year-old boy living at home with his natural parents and 8-yearold sister. His medical history was unremarkable. His psychiatric history included a diagnosis
of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for which he was receiving 36 milligrams
of Concerta, a psychostimulant, every day. His educational history included strong test scores
(e.g., high 90th percentile) but poor performance in school (failing in four topics and just
passing in one). The parents had seen several counselors about their son's poor academic
performance, but none of them had been able to improve Tom's grades either through direct
counseling with him or recommendations made to his parents.
The initial assessment included meetings with Tom's parents, his schoolteacher and the
principal, and his family physician. The assessment included a physical examination by the
physician and a variety of tests and observations by the therapist. The tests included the
Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (youth and parent versions), a computerized
structured interview with a large ADHD section, and some paper-and-pencil behavior problem
checklists (e.g., Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory) completed by the parents and teacher. The
observations included home and school samples of behavior as well as Tom's behavior in the
waiting room. The results of the physical exam showed the boy to be in good health and
within normal limits for height and weight. The results of the tests and observations indicated
only modest levels of inattentive, impulsive, and overactive behavior at home and school. A
conference between the physician, teacher, principal, and therapist yielded a consensual
conclusion that the primary problem involved Tom's failure to do his homework. The parents
were aware that he did little homework but were unaware of the amount that had been
routinely assigned but was not brought home. A discussion with Tom ended with his
proclamation that he hated homework and was not going to bring it home, and even if he did,
he was not going to do it. The parents reported having tried a variety of incentive systems to
induce Tom to bring and do homework but none had worked. A homeschool program with a
predominant NR component was then established. The physician agreed to monitor the
medication and, along with the parents, felt that the current type and dose was probably
helpful.
The initial part of the home program involved structured feedback and consequence systems
for general aspects of Tom's behavior (e.g., motivational systems addressing chores and
household rules, special time with parents, enhanced clarity of parental instructions, intensive
effort to catch Tom in the act of behaving appropriately). A critical component for the
homework part of the program was the establishment of a fixed 9:00 P.M. bedtime. Two NRbased components, both tied to avoidance of an even earlier bedtime, were then derived from
the fixed bedtime. The first required that Tom bring enough work home to occupy him for 1
hour a night. The teacher agreed to supply the work. The penalty for not bringing the work
home was a bedtime that began immediately after dinner (e.g., usually around 6:00 P.M.). The

second component required that Tom either go to bed at 7:30 P.M. or sit at the kitchen table
and do his homework for at least 1 hour. If he complied, he could then stay up until 9:00 and
do what he pleased. On the first afternoon of the program, he brought home no work and was
sent to bed right after dinner. He protested loudly on the way to his room, hitting walls,
kicking the staircase banister, and destroying some personal possessions once in his room.
The parents were undeterred and did not intervene. The next afternoon he brought home a
large amount of work but refused to do it. He was sent to bed at 7:30, and although he again
protested loudly, his display was solely verbal, and by 8:30 was pleading to be allowed to do
his work. The following afternoon he again brought home a large amount of work, and at 7:30
he sat at the kitchen table and worked steadily for 70 minutes. The parents allowed him to
stay up until 9:10. Similar results were subsequently regularly produced, and the program was
kept in place for the entire final month of his school year. There were no more outbursts. On
one occasion, he left his work at school but readily agreed to walk back to school and retrieve
it before the teacher went home for the night. By the end of the school year, his grades had
risen from their mostly failing level to two Bs, two Cs, and a D. The parents and teacher
considered this a major success.

CONCLUSION
NR is a ubiquitous phenomenon that influences behavior not by what happens but by what
does not happen. In colloquial terms, the purpose of a large amount of human behavior is to
reduce, postpone, avoid, or escape unpleasant events. NR is the technical term for this
purpose. A fuller understanding of the concept not only leads to a fuller understanding of a
vast range of clinically relevant human behavior but also to a range of novel and powerful
applications for that behavior.
Patrick C. Friman
Further Reading

Entry Citation:
Friman, Patrick C. "Negative Reinforcement." Encyclopedia of Behavior Modification and
Cognitive Behavior Therapy. 2007. SAGE Publications. 15 Apr. 2008. <http://sageereference.com/cbt/Article_n2081.html>.