In the context of instructional demands, compliance and problem behavior can be considered concurrent operants. Of applied interest is increasing one response (i.e., compliance) while decreasing the other (i.e., problem behavior). Strategic arrangement of reinforcement can alter response allocation accordingly. Such schedules can also influence…

In this article, the author discusses the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement and some additional considerations. He states that the concept of negative reinforcement has caused confusion, and he believes that the difficulty stems from conventions of ordinary speech, in which the term "negative" usually denotes the opposite of…

This article presents the argument presented by the author regarding the views of Baron and Galizio (2005), which provide an accurate and very clear version of the author's arguments against the use of the positive-negative reinforcement distinction in behavior analysis. Here, the author points out few things to add to Baron and Galizio's (2005)…

In this article, the author discusses and presents seven possibilities that describe how symmetry principles are reflected in behavior analysis. First, if there are apparently no functional distinctions to be made between positive and negative reinforcement, then reinforcer effectiveness (by various measures) is invariant under a simple inversion…

In a previous issue of "The Behavior Analyst," the authors discussed the ambiguities that surround the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. Seven distinguished behavior analysts commented on their article. The authors believe that this dialogue represented a constructive step toward clarification of an important concept within…

In this article, the author presents his views on Michael's (1975) and Baron and Galizio's (2005) arguments on eliminating the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. He first discusses Michael's concept of these two types of operations and contrasts it with the notions of Baron and Galizio. The author provides the readers his own…

It is customary in behavior analysis to distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of whether the reinforcing event involves onset or offset of a stimulus. In a previous article (Baron & Galizio, 2005), we concluded that a distinction of these terms is not only ambiguous but has little if any functional significance. Here, we…

The author of this article presents his own explanation on the two types of conditioning--respondent and operant. He states that when withdrawal of a negative reinforcer is the contingency that increases the strength of the operant behavior, the stimulus will have a negative emotional response to the experimental chamber. However, when a positive…

Baron and Galizio (2005) reviewed and updated Michael's (1975) observations concerning the problems surrounding the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. In the end they concluded that the valence is unjustified. However, despite the fact that the logical and empirical underpinnings of the distinction have been questioned for…

Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence.…