DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY

A positive reinforcer is a stimulus (e.g., item, event, experience) the presentation of which, or
contact with which, increases the probability of (i.e., strengthens) responses that produce the
presentation or contact. Positive reinforcement (PR) is the descriptive label for the
relationship between the stimulus, the presentation or contact, and the change in probability.
The increase in probability (or strengthening) that defines reinforcement refers to measurable
changes in the dimensions of behavior (e.g., rate, duration, magnitude). PR is a ubiquitous
phenomenon, and examples of positively reinforced behavior abound on every scale of human
(and infrahuman) existence. Some small-scale examples include button pressing that produces
desired results (e.g., elevator arrives), work that produces wages, study that produces high
grades, comportment that produces praise, exercise that produces improved health and
appearance, dressing that produces admiring glances, and gardening that produces attractive
landscaping. Large-scale examples include higher education, theft, selling, investing, and
capitalism itself. Relatedly, the range of events that can exert a PR influence is extraordinarily
broad. Colloquially, any events that have even a remote possibility of being preferred over
other available events have the potential to be positive reinforcers, and behavior whose
purpose is the production of, or contact with, these events is said to be positively reinforced.
Despite a fairly straightforward definition that is widely available in textbooks and research
literature, PR is often misunderstood and the word reinforce and its cognates misused. A
common misunderstanding is that the words reinforce and reward are interchangeable.
Colloquially, they may be, but technically, they are not. A reward is a reinforcer only if its
presentation strengthens the behavior that produces the reward. That rewards do not always
have such an effect is often used to criticize the concept of reinforcement and, indeed, operant
theory itself (more on it below). This criticism is misplaced, however, because reinforcers, by
definition, are consequential events that increase the probability of (i.e., strengthen) the
behaviors that produce them. If events do not have a strengthening effect on behavior, they
may still be rewards, but they are not reinforcers. Another common misunderstanding is that
the word positive in PR refers to a quality of the reinforcing event, meaning pleasant or
something preferred. Although reinforcers are often pleasant or preferred, the word positive
refers to something that has been added (e.g., presented, obtained, contacted) and not to a
quality. A common misuse of the term positive reinforcement involves statements that pertain
to reinforcing persons (e.g., I reinforced him for doing his chore). PR refers to the
strengthening of behavior, not persons. Persons can be rewarded, but they cannot be
reinforced.
Historically, PR emerged from and was actually a primary predicate of the operant learning
tradition and the work of B. F. Skinner, arguably the most influential psychologist of the 20th
century. Although facts pertaining to PR were available long before Skinner, he organized the
most pertinent ones, incorporated them with new facts generated by his own experiments, and
developed what has come to be known as operant learning theory.

RESEARCH BASIS
Generally, PR research involves the study of the relationships between manipulations of
antecedent and consequent environmental events and the behavioral responses affected by the
manipulations (although there are myriad variations on that theme). Notably, the research base
for PR is probably the largest for a single concept in all of psychology. There are two major

scientific journals (The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior and The Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis) devoted almost solely to the study of reinforcement (and most of
it on PR). In addition, there are thousands of published scientific papers, emanating from
multiples fields of scientific inquiry, reporting experimental preparations that directly or
indirectly pertain to PR. Early PR research was conducted with laboratory animals in highly
controlled environments, but as early as the mid-1960s, PR researchers began reporting
experiments involving persons. Soon thereafter, the applied implications of PR were explored
in earnest, and since then, PR has been a partial or primary topic in scientific papers, too
numerous to count, pertaining to almost all aspects of human life. Given the enormity of the
research base, a comprehensive account of PR would not fit into several large books, not to
mention the few pages available here. Thus, this entry will merely note a few salient areas of
PR research, specifically, the distinction between behavior conditioned by consequences (e.g.,
PR) and behavior conditioned by antecedents and some variables that influence the
effectiveness of PR.

Consequent Versus Antecedent Conditioning

Among the most important of B. F. Skinner's contributions was an empirically based
conceptual distinction between behavior conditioned by consequences (e.g., PR) and behavior
conditioned by antecedents (i.e., by classical conditioning). The former are referred to as
operants and the latter as respondents. Confusion between the two can occur because, despite
the essential role of consequences in PR, full understanding of the concept also requires
consideration of the events that precede reinforced behavior (antecedents). The emphasis on
antecedents, however, brings to mind classically conditioned behavior or behavior that is
elicited by antecedent events (e.g., ringing bell elicits salivation). But operant behavior is
actually emitted in the presence of antecedents and not elicited by them. Operant behavior has
more of a volitional quality (although volition is not part of the definition), whereas
respondent behavior has a more reflexive quality. In operant behavior, the antecedent sets the
occasion for a response that operates on the environment (thus the term operant) to produce
reinforcing consequences (e.g., light turns green, pressing the gas pedal is emitted, forward
progress is attained), but in respondent behavior the antecedent evokes or elicits a response
(thus the term respondent).

Influences on the Effectiveness of PR

Research on PR has generated a large number of variables that influence its effectiveness, and
the more salient ones are relativity, contingency, timing, schedule, and rules. Actually, all of
these can be incorporated into a superordinate variable, context, but the scope of PR research
ranges from a macro contextual focus down to a micro focus on subelements of the other
variables (e.g., effects of a tightly defined PR schedule). A brief description of some of the
major variables will be provided here.
Relativity
PR is a relative concept. For example, events involving the necessities of life such as eating,
drinking, or procreating can have powerfully reinforcing functions, but not under all
circumstances. The preferences and needs of individuals change (often dramatically) in accord
with changes in antecedent environmental conditions, and thus the effects of PR-based
applications often fluctuate with circumstances. For example, food can be a powerful
reinforcer if a person is hungry, but it can quickly lose this power when the person is full. In

addition, experiences that are reinforcing for some persons can be punishing for others (e.g.,
deep water for swimmers versus nonswimmers). There are many other examples.
Contingency
Most of the research on PR emphasizes the importance of a contingent relationship between
response and consequences. Generally, contingency refers to a dependency between
reinforcers and the responses that produce them; as dependency decreases, so too does the
influence of reinforcing consequences. For example, the value of preventive medicine is hard
to overestimate, and yet the use of, faith in, and support for curative and rehabilitative
medicine is vastly greater. This is largely due to the obvious dependency (i.e., contingency)
between procedures that cure or rehabilitate and healthful outcomes and the subtle and at
times virtually undetectable dependency between preventive procedures and healthful
outcomes.
Timing
Timing is everything, or so it is said. In the study of PR, the saying is mostly if not entirely
true, and generally, maximally effective PR requires a minimal temporal distance between
response and reinforcer; immediate delivery is optimal. The relationship between timing and
contingency should not be overlooked. For example, time is the primary element obscuring
contingencies between preventive medicine and healthful outcomes. The benefits of a curative
procedure are almost immediately apparent, whereas the benefits of a preventive procedure
may take years to emerge.
Schedule
The importance of the schedule of PR is hard to overestimate. All reinforcers are delivered (or
contacted) according to a schedule, and the primary dimensions used to establish it include
rate of response (a reinforcer for a defined number of responses) and interval between
responses (a reinforcer for a response emitted after a set amount of time has passed). There
are other dimensions such as duration or intensity, but they can be incorporated into the
defining properties of the response for which PR is scheduled. There are two primary types of
schedules derived from the two primary dimensions: continuous (a reinforcer is delivered for
each target response) and intermittent (a reinforcer is delivered only after a set number of
responses have been emitted or amount of time has passed). And there are numerous
secondary subtypes of schedules, the most common of which are fixed interval, fixed rate,
variable interval, and variable rate, and each exerts a characteristic effect upon behavior. In
addition, these subtypes can be combined into complex multiple schedules. Because PR
strengthens behavior, it seems logical that the more frequently a behavior is reinforced, the
stronger it would become and thus that continuous PR would be the most effective schedule.
This is not always the case, however. The effects of continuous PR can quickly deteriorate,
especially if response rates are high and the scheduled reinforcer is consumable (e.g., food,
water) or an event whose reinforcing properties include novelty (e.g., bird watching). In
addition, behavior maintained by continuous PR is much more susceptible to experimental
manipulations such as abrupt withdrawal of PR (i.e., extinction). For additional information
on schedules consult the book by Charles Ferster and B. F. Skinner listed in the suggested
readings.
Rules

Over the last three decades, it has become increasingly apparent that verbal behavior (e.g.,
language) can powerfully influence the effectiveness of PR. Simply and colloquially stated,
things said about PR can influence its effects. B. F. Skinner labeled behavior brought about or
influenced by things said rule-governed behavior, and he defined rules as contingencyspecifying stimuli. In more general terms, rule-governed behavior is behavior influenced by
language. The profound role such behavior plays in human life is underscored by the minimal
role it plays in animal life. For example, the statement Don't eat that food, it's poisoned
would diminish the reinforcing properties of the food for virtually all languageable persons
and for virtually no animals. More generally, rules (e.g., language) can strongly influence a
person's susceptibility to stimuli deployed as potential reinforcers.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Behaviors, not persons, are the target consideration in the analysis of PR, and, in principle,
most human behavior is susceptible to its influence. In addition, although clinical concerns
involve a dauntingly large and diverse category, they can productively be reduced to two
subcategories of behavior: excesses and deficits. Said slightly differently and more
colloquially, clinical concerns involve behavior that occurs either too much or too little. For
example, alcoholism involves behavior that occurs too much and selective mutism involves
behavior that occurs too little. From the perspective of excesses and deficits, PR has
implications for virtually all clinical concerns. The obvious implications are for behavior that
occurs too little. By definition, PR strengthens behavior, and a hallmark of strengthened
behavior is an increase in its rate. Therefore, PR can be applied to behavior that occurs too
little in order to increase its occurrence. Less straightforward but nonetheless real are clinical
implications of behavior that occurs too much. Two options are to reduce the PR for the
behavior or to supply PR for an incompatible alternative. There are many other examples.
PR also has powerful implications for clinical assessment. Understanding problem behavior is
the logical first step in attempts at remedy, and, correspondingly, determining the role of PR
in the maintenance of the problem behavior can be a major step in understanding the problem.
Sometimes the role of PR is obvious. When asked why he robbed banks, the notorious thief
Willie Sutton said because that is where the money is. In many cases, however, the role of
PR is subtler. For example, its role in cigarette smoking is widely misunderstood. Most people
believe nicotine is the reinforcer that maintains smoking, but clinical assessment of smoking
indicates that nicotine is but one of many forms of PR that support it. For example, smokers
take breaks from work to meet with other workers and smoke. The breaks and contacts can be
powerful reinforcers. As another example, when children steal, the ostensible operating PR is
procurement of the thing stolen. In some cases, however, the actual operating PR is the
impression the theft makes on peer witnesses. There are a vast number of other examples that
reveal the extraordinary range of the clinical implications of PR.

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
The extensive clinical implications of PR have led to an extraordinary array of clinical
applications, ranging in complexity from simple PR delivery for isolated noncomplex
responses (e.g., pick up the block, receive candy) to multilevel PR systems that incorporate
many different types of reinforcers and methods for enhancing effectiveness (e.g., token
economies in residential care). In fact, the extent of clinical applications is so broad that it is
virtually impossible to determine where it begins and ends. PR is employed to solve behavior

problems (excesses or deficits) across virtually all fields whose primary purpose is the
provision of some type of human service ranging from education to penal systems.
The ubiquity of applications of PR does not mean the concept is without controversy, and yet
most of the criticism stems from fundamental misunderstandings. For example, one major
controversy involves the belief that use of external reinforcers (e.g., stickers) with children
undermines their intrinsic motivation. Review of the extensive literature on this topic,
however, reveals that the misunderstanding referred to earlier in the entrymistaking rewards
for reinforcersis at the heart of the critical argument. In addition, researchers making the
case against PR rarely incorporate any of the methods to increase its effectiveness described
earlier. Assessments of whether something used as a reward is actually a reinforcer are not
conducted, strict contingencies are not established, rewards are withdrawn without
explanation, and rewards promised are not delivered. Rather than a convincing case against
clinical application of PR, the critical literature is a valuable source of information on
ineffective ways of using it.
Another source of controversy or at least concern is when PR seems not to work. Actually,
this concern too involves some misunderstanding because, technically, PR is an operational
concept, and if it is not working, it is not actually PR. But in many clinical cases, PR is very
difficult to establish, and these give rise to the notion that PR does not always work. One
often effective strategy in such cases is to review the methods for ways to improve a PRbased program.

CASE EXAMPLE
Alex was a 10-year-old boy living in a behaviorally oriented residential care program. Alex
was so frequently disruptive that the program began a termination plan that would result in his
referral to a more restrictive facility. A brief reprieve was provided, accompanied by a request
for behavioral assessment of the disruption and a new treatment plan. Alex's primary problem
was a high rate of arguing that frequently led to aggressive interactions with peers. His
behavior assessment focused on identifying sources of reinforcement, maintaining that
arguing and his treatment plan focused on teaching him to interact more appropriately with
peers. The assessment included two major components: (1) unobtrusive observations of Alex
interacting with peers in his home with special attention on antecedents and consequences,
and (2) an experimental manipulation of consequences for arguing. The assessment indicated
that Alex was most at risk for arguing when more than 11 minutes passed without direct
attention from staff. Arguments, however, were routinely followed almost immediately by
staff attention, albeit typically negative. These findings suggested that staff attention was
functioning as PR for arguing and that its delayed delivery produced a characteristic increase
in rate. Subsequent experimental manipulations of staff attention for arguing supported these
suggestions. Subsequent related changes in Alex's program included at least 30 seconds of
staff attention at least every 8 minutes and requiring staff to direct all attention to Alex's
adversaries whenever arguments occurred. Arguing reduced to near zero rates, prosocial
behaviors increased in frequency, and at 3-month follow-up, Alex's placement was still
maintained.

CONCLUSION

PR is one of the most widely studied and applied concepts in all of psychology. Unfortunately,
it is also widely misunderstood and misapplied. Accurate understanding is dependent on strict
variations of its technical definition (e.g., events produced by behavior that increase its
probability). Effective application is dependent on the extent that known methods for
increasing effectiveness are incorporated into the application. Fuller understanding of the
concept could lead to fuller understanding of and better solutions for many of the aberrant
aspects of human behavior.
Clinton Field and Patrick C. Friman
Further Reading

Entry Citation:
Field, Clinton, and Patrick C. Friman. "Positive Reinforcement." Encyclopedia of Behavior
Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy. 2007. SAGE Publications. 15 Apr. 2008.
<http://sage-ereference.com/cbt/Article_n2093.html>.