Positively Tricky

We use the word “positive” to mean many different things—and muddy our waters of understanding as a result. In the behavioral sciences, in the strictest sense, the word positive means “something added in.” In positive reinforcement training, then, “positive” means “treat” or reinforce added within a setting to make a particular behavior more likely to occur. A dolphin swims to a target and gets a mackerel as a result. The dolphin has been positively reinforced to swim toward the target. In a parallel way, the “negative” of negative reinforcement means taking something away, removing an aversive, to make a behavior more likely. When a boss stops nagging when a worker gets their time card in on time, that worker has been negatively reinforced to make the behavior more likely. Hand in the card, the nagging stops. In this field, “positive” and “negative” don’t mean “good” and “bad” in any moral sense. They act more like “presence” and “absence” or “plus” and “minus”—which is why the terms get abbreviated as “R+” and “R-”.

The same math applies for punishment as well. Positive punishment doesn’t mean “good” punishment. Instead, it means adding in something unwanted to make a behavior less likely to occur again. Negative punishment doesn’t mean something “bad”—though it often can be unpleasant—but instead suggests taking away something desirable to make a specific behavior less likely. Not right or wrong, but added or removed.

In everyday conversation, of course, we most often do use the word positive to mean good,

Positive reinforcement makes for a happy learner.

desirable, or healthy. Positive people stay kind, compassionate, cheerful, encouraging, upbeat or optimistic. Similarly, in common usage, negative indicates bad or undesirable, poisonous or judgmental, dour or critiquing. It’s this colloquial use that leads many to understand positive reinforcement to mean “saying something nice” or even “trying to reinforce by being kind.” For many, kind words or praise can be rewarding, but they’re not necessary. Nor are they sufficient. Someone can be plenty kind and remain an inept behavior-based teacher, relying on poor timing, unclear directions, misevaluation, or wandering criteria.

So, is it possible to use positive reinforcement and maintain a gruff or authoritarian manner? Perhaps to some degree, but the nastiness introduces cross-currents that undercut the intended work. As soon as fear or intimidation enter the equation, the learner starts paying attention to survival or to pleasing the teacher—to avoiding the aversive—rather than concentrating full energies on the task at hand. The delight of learning turns into the relief of being left alone. That’s a far less productive place to reside. The right task isn’t “pleasing the teacher.” It’s “get the job done.”

In this way, the most effective practitioners of positive reinforcement will stay “positive” in the sense of supportive or uplifting. That doesn’t mean they need to be syrupy or falsely positive just for the sake of appearing “nice.” Reinforcers need to be linked with specific behaviors, timed appropriately, and evaluated for success. Saying “good job” when someone doesn’t accomplish an intended task is not positive reinforcement. It does suggest that skillful teachers will create a non-coercive learning environment free from fear or intimidation. Those of us trying to promote the value of positive reinforcement will do well to help make this distinction “positively” clear.