Positive reinforcement is an operant conditioning technique in which a desirable stimulus is added after a behavior, making that behavior more likely to happen again. B. F. Skinner developed the concept, showing that behavior is shaped by its consequences rather than by conscious intention.
Key Takeaways
- Origins: Positive reinforcement comes from B. F. Skinner’s research in the 1930s and 1940s into how consequences change behavior, a theory known as operant conditioning.
- Adding a Stimulus: Positive reinforcement means introducing a pleasant stimulus after a behavior to encourage that behavior or build a new one.
- Reinforcer Types: Reinforcers can be natural, social, tangible, or token-based, and reinforcers can also be classed as primary, secondary, or generalized.
- Schedules: Reinforcement can be delivered continuously or on a fixed or variable schedule, based on responses or time. The schedule used affects how quickly a behavior is learned and how long it lasts.
- Wide-Ranging Effects: Positive reinforcement shapes behavior from the psychology lab to the classroom, the workplace, and social media use.
How Does It Work?
Positive reinforcement is a basic principle of Skinner’s operant conditioning. It refers to the introduction of a desirable or pleasant stimulus, such as a reward, after a behavior.
This desirable stimulus reinforces the behavior, making it more likely to happen again. It works for new behaviors too. It can also strengthen ones that already exist.
Operant Conditioning is the theory that underlies Skinner’s positive reinforcement technique. In essence, the idea is that one can modify behavior by controlling the consequences that follow it.
Skinner argued that learning is an active process. When humans and animals act on their environment, consequences follow. He believed these external, observable consequences explained behavior, not internal thoughts or motivations (Staddon & Cerutti, 2003).
A consequence that makes a behavior more likely to happen again is called reinforcement. One that makes a behavior less likely is called punishment. Both can work by adding something or by taking something away, a distinction covered later in this article.
Reinforcement vs. Reward: Why They Aren’t the Same
Positive reinforcement is often described as “rewarding good behavior with something pleasant.” That description is a useful starting point, but it is not quite accurate, and the difference matters.
Skinner deliberately avoided defining a reinforcer by how pleasant it feels. A stimulus counts as a positive reinforcer only if adding it after a behavior actually raises how often that behavior happens again (Skinner, 1938). Whether it looks rewarding is irrelevant. The behavior itself is the test.
This functional definition explains two things a reward-based description cannot.
- A reward is not automatically a reinforcer. A teacher may hand out stickers believing they reward good work, but if on-task behavior doesn’t increase, the sticker isn’t a reinforcer for that child.
- Reinforcers are personal. They need not feel pleasant: a child who craves attention may find a teacher’s telling-off reinforcing, because it delivers attention. The disruptive behavior then increases, even though the “consequence” was meant to be unpleasant.
What reinforces someone depends on that person’s history and current state, not on how nice the stimulus looks from the outside. This is why practitioners test whether something actually works as a reinforcer instead of assuming anything pleasant will do.
Types of Positive Reinforcement
Reinforcers can also be classified by how they gained their power. A primary reinforcer works without any prior learning because it meets a biological need, such as food, water, or warmth.
A secondary (conditioned) reinforcer starts out neutral. It gains its power by being paired with an existing reinforcer, the way praise or a grade comes to matter through years of good associations.
A generalized reinforcer is a conditioned reinforcer, such as money or tokens, that has been paired with many different backup reinforcers. Because it is not tied to one need, it keeps working almost regardless of what a person currently wants (Skinner, 1953; Ayllon & Azrin, 1968).
Applied settings also use a more practical four-way scheme. There are four types of positive reinforcers, and each may work better or worse depending on the individual and the situation (Kamery, 2004).
- Natural reinforcers are those that occur directly as a result of the behavior. For example, persistent research and effort on a work campaign may lead to raises and promotions.
- Social reinforcers involve expressing approval for desirable behavior. For example, a teacher or parent may praise a child, or an employer may call an employee’s work excellent (Kamery, 2004).
- Tangible reinforcers involve actual physical rewards for desirable behavior. These could include candy, treats, toys, money, or some other desirable object. While these rewards can be powerful, their overuse can disincentivize the behavior when they are not used (Kamery, 2004).
- Token reinforcers are points or tokens awarded for performing certain actions. These can then be exchanged for something of value. For example, a teacher may give a student points for completing assignments on time, which can be exchanged for a prize (Kamery, 2004).
The Premack Principle
The Premack principle solves a practical problem: how to know, in advance, what will reinforce a particular person. It has a simple answer.
Psychologist David Premack found that a highly probable activity can reinforce a less probable one, and that this relationship works in either direction. It remains one of the most useful ideas in applied behavior analysis.
Premack’s Original Study
Aim: Premack (1959) aimed to find a general rule that could predict, before any reward was tested, which activities would reinforce which.
Method: Premack measured how much time children spent on different activities when they were free to choose. Then he changed the rules.
Access to one activity now depended on completing another first, so a child had to finish something less-preferred before reaching something more-preferred. He ran a parallel study in animals, using drinking and wheel-running.
Results: The more probable activity reinforced the less probable one. Children who preferred sweets played more pinball when playing earned them sweets. Children who preferred pinball ate more when eating earned a turn on the machine.
Premack (1962) later showed the relationship reverses. Depriving rats of a chance to run made running reinforce drinking, even though drinking is normally the more probable activity.
Conclusion: Whichever response is momentarily more probable will reinforce a less probable one. Reinforcement is not a fixed property of any particular stimulus.
Grandma’s Rule in Everyday Life
This principle is the empirical basis of “Grandma’s rule”: first eat your vegetables, then you may have dessert. It explains why a preferred activity, such as screen time, can reinforce a non-preferred one, such as homework or tidying a bedroom.
Timing matters here. A common parenting mistake reverses the logic: offering the reward before the behavior happens turns reinforcement into a bribe.
Evaluation: Useful but Incomplete
The Premack principle is genuinely predictive and widely used. Later work refined it. Timberlake and Allison (1974) proposed the response-deprivation hypothesis: what matters is not relative probability, but whether a schedule restricts a response below its normal baseline.
Under this account, even a lower-probability activity can reinforce a higher-probability one, provided access to it has been restricted.
The principle has practical limits, too. Measuring baseline probabilities is not always possible outside the laboratory. And like Skinner’s functional definition, it describes what will reinforce without explaining why.
Examples
Animal training
A classic use of positive reinforcement is in animal training and behavior. The general adage of animal training is to reward positive behaviors and ignore undesirable ones.
The use of positive reinforcement as a way of training animals dates to early psychological research, in particular, the works of B. F. Skinner.
Skinner devised a method of rewarding positive behavior called the Skinner box (Dezfouli & Balleine, 2012).
Essentially, this skinner box contains a lever or button that delivers a reward, such as food or water, when pressed correctly. A tracker then records each response.
Skinner did not wait for chance. He used shaping: reinforcing small steps that increasingly resembled the goal behavior, and raising the bar as the animal improved.
A pigeon might first be reinforced for turning toward the lever, then for approaching it, then only for pressing it. Small steps add up. This same method, called marker or clicker training, now underlies much of modern guide-dog and police-dog training (Skinner, 1951; Skinner, 1953).
Animals learn this way too. They perform a task in a particular way to receive a reward, an example of tangible reinforcement (Dezfouli & Balleine, 2012).
In the workplace
Positive reinforcement can also be used in the workplace to encourage desirable behaviors. For example, an employer may give employees a bonus for meeting or exceeding sales targets.
This type of positive reinforcement is often called a “performance-related pay” or “pay for performance” system.
In another example, an employee who always arrives at work on time may receive a monthly gift card that reinforces timeliness.
Alternatively, an employer might give employees extra paid vacation days as a way of reinforcing good attendance (Ackerman, 2022).
Positive reinforcement is not the same as bribery. A bribe is offered before the behavior, to induce it; reinforcement is delivered after the behavior has already happened.
For example, an employee who already arrives at work on time every day cannot be bribed to keep doing so. That employee is only eligible for positive reinforcement, delivered as a reward after the fact (Ackerman, 2022).
Social Media
Social media use has skyrocketed in recent years, and positive reinforcement may be one reason why. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram use likes, followers, and other rewards to keep users engaged.
The pattern behind this is no accident.
Likes and replies arrive on an unpredictable schedule. Sometimes a post gets many; sometimes it gets almost none. This unpredictability is itself the hook. Psychologists call it a variable-ratio schedule, the same pattern that makes slot machines hard to resist, and it produces the steadiest responding of any pattern.
For example, a person who posts a photo on Instagram is likely to receive likes from friends and followers, which encourages them to keep posting. Frequent tweeters who get replies and retweets keep tweeting for the same reason.
Not every platform uses the same reward.
Instagram and Facebook use a likes system. Snapchat uses streaks instead: the number of consecutive days that two people have Snapchatted each other, which encourages users to keep messaging to protect the streak (Ackerman, 2022).
Schedules of Positive Reinforcement
An important aspect of Skinner’s research examines the
effectiveness of different patterns and frequencies of reward.
A positive reinforcement schedule is one that defines how someone looking to use positive reinforcement encourages behavior. There are five different positive reinforcement schedules (Ferster & Skinner, 1957).
- A continuous schedule, where the behavior is reinforced after each and every occurrence. This schedule, unfortunately, is difficult to maintain, as those enforcing behavior are rarely able to be present for every occurrence of it.
- A fixed ratio reinforcement schedule, where the behavior is reinforced after a specific number of occurrences. For example, a pigeon may receive a pellet after pecking three times.
- A fixed interval, where the behavior is reinforced after a specific amount of time.
- A variable ratio, where the behavior is reinforced after a variable number of occurrences. For example, a behavior may be reinforced after one occurrence, then after another three, then another two.
- A variable interval, where the behavior is reinforced after a variable amount of time. For example, after one minute, then 30 minutes, then 10 minutes.
These schedules depend on context. For example, an adult looking for a promotion at work may receive one annually, as long-term schedules tend to be effective for adults.
Meanwhile, a fixed ratio schedule may be effective for training a dog once it understands what behaviors are desirable.
Token Economies: The Ayllon and Azrin Study
A token economy rewards behavior with tokens, such as plastic chips or points, that can later be exchanged for real rewards. Tokens work instantly. They solve the timing problem that a slower, real reward cannot.
Aim: Ayllon and Azrin (1968) tested whether systematic positive reinforcement could increase self-care and social behavior in psychiatric patients for whom standard treatment had long failed.
Method: On a hospital ward, women with long-standing schizophrenia earned tokens for washing, dressing, and making their beds. They traded tokens for privacy, cinema, or food. The key was contingency: the token depended on, and followed, that specific behavior.
The researchers used a reversal design. Tokens were first given only for the target behaviors, then given regardless of behavior, then made contingent again.
Results: Target behaviors rose when tokens were contingent and fell when tokens were given regardless of behavior. They recovered once the contingency returned.
Conclusion: Behavior tracked the contingency, not the tokens themselves. This showed genuine reinforcement rather than a general lift in mood, and even severely impaired adults responded strongly to well-designed token contingencies.
Evaluation: The reversal design gives the study strong internal validity, and the model has since been used in classrooms, prisons, and developmental services. Two problems remain: gains can fade once the program ends, and controlling access to ordinary comforts raises ethical questions.
Positive reinforcement is not the opposite of negative reinforcement
Both positive and negative reinforcement make a behavior more likely to happen again. They differ only in the type of consequence involved.
- Positive reinforcement adds a desirable consequence after a behavior, increasing the chance it repeats.
- Negative reinforcement removes an unpleasant condition after a behavior, which also increases its future occurrence (Dozier, Foley, Goddard, & Jess, 2019).
A smoker illustrates both. Relief after a cigarette makes smoking more likely to happen again. If the same smoker instead got a candy bar for smoking, that would be positive reinforcement doing the same job through an added reward.
A popular claim holds that positive reinforcement works faster, while negative reinforcement produces longer-lasting change.
This is not well supported.
What actually governs how long a behavior lasts is the schedule of reinforcement, not whether it is positive or negative (Ferster & Skinner, 1957).
Not everyone responds the same way. Some people respond strongly to one type of reinforcement and barely at all to the other. Even a single behavior may respond to both, depending on the person. The right choice depends on the behavior, the individual, and the desired outcome.
In the classroom
Positive reinforcement is popular in the classroom.
It works in the moment, and its effect often outlasts the reinforcement itself. One study found it improved students’ behavior and social skills even after the reinforcer was removed (Diedrich, 2010).
Not all praise works equally well. Behavior-specific praise names exactly what the student did well, such as “you started your work straight away,” instead of a generic “good job.”
That specificity matters.
A teacher might give gold stars to students who turn in work on time, or offer praise, high-fives, or a small treat for good behavior. This works even better alongside peer pressure.
Children often want to do the right thing and may feel embarrassed if caught misbehaving in front of friends. With classmates watching, they become more receptive than usual to a reward (Ackerman, 2022).
Effectiveness
Numerous studies confirm that positive reinforcement works, and it is widely used in both research and everyday life, from training dogs to raising children and running a classroom (Ackerman, 2022). Several factors determine how well it works.
- Timing. Deliver the reinforcer as soon as possible after the behavior. A longer gap weakens the connection and lets an unrelated behavior get reinforced instead.
- Motivation. A reinforcer only works when the learner currently wants it.
- Simplicity. Positive reinforcement never requires removing anything or introducing an unpleasant consequence.
- Positive associations. Learning linked to good feelings tends to be remembered well beyond the point where reinforcement stops (Ackerman, 2022).
Motivation deserves a closer look. Michael (1982) called this a motivating operation: deprivation increases how much a reinforcer is worth, and satiation reduces it to nothing.
Food reinforces a hungry animal, not a full one. This is why the same reward can work powerfully one day and fail completely the next.
This simplicity tends to improve morale and motivation, since it is generally easier to encourage a behavior than to discourage one (Kamery, 2004).
Critical Evaluation of Positive Reinforcement
Positive reinforcement is powerful and well replicated, but it has real limits. The strengths below explain why it is so widely used, and the limitations explain when it can fail or even backfire.
Strengths
- Objective and testable. A reinforcer is defined by its effect on behavior, not by whether it seems pleasant, so positive reinforcement can be tested, not assumed (Skinner, 1938).
- Predictive and practical. The Premack principle lets practitioners predict what will reinforce someone in advance. The underlying technology, including shaping and token economies, is backed by meta-analytic evidence (Premack, 1959; Kim et al., 2022).
- Humane relative to aversive control. It strengthens behavior without the fear or aggression that punishment can produce, which is why it is the first-line strategy in education and animal training.
These strengths are practical, not just theoretical.
A reinforcer is defined by its measured effect, not by how pleasant it looks. This lets practitioners test a candidate reward directly instead of guessing whether it will work, which limits wasted effort in classrooms and clinics.
The toolkit built on this logic, including shaping, token economies, and contingency management, now rests on meta-analytic evidence rather than isolated demonstrations (Kim et al., 2022). It transfers across ages and settings.
Limitations
- Reward can backfire. Rewarding an already-enjoyable activity can undermine later interest in it, though the effect is bounded, not universal (Lepper et al., 1973; Deci et al., 1999).
- Fragile transfer. Gains often fail to generalize beyond the program that produced them and can fade once reinforcement stops (Ayllon & Azrin, 1968).
- Reinforcers are personal and short-lived. What reinforces someone depends on their individual history and current state, so no single reward works for everyone or forever.
- Under-explains human cognition. In humans, psychologist Albert Bandura argued that reinforcement works partly through conscious expectation and observing others rewarded, not just automatic strengthening (Bandura, 1977).
None of these limitations is fatal, but each raises the cost of doing positive reinforcement well. The backfire risk is largely confined to salient, expected rewards for tasks people already enjoy.
It is mostly spared, or even reversed, by praise and by rewards tied to meeting a standard rather than to mere participation (Cameron et al., 2001).
Fragile transfer is addressed by deliberately programming generalization: thinning the schedule, recruiting reinforcers already present in daily life, and practicing across varied settings rather than depending on one artificial contingency.
Because reinforcers are personal and can stop working once someone is satiated on them, well-run programs also need ongoing reassessment and rotation of what is actually being offered.
The Overjustification Effect
The most serious challenge to positive reinforcement is that rewarding an activity someone already enjoys can reduce later interest in it. Psychologists call this overjustification.
Aim: Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) tested whether promising children an extrinsic reward for an activity they already enjoyed would undermine their later intrinsic interest.
Method: The setup was simple. Children who enjoyed drawing were split into three groups. One group was told in advance they would receive a reward for drawing. A second group received the same reward as a surprise afterward, and a third group, the control, received no reward.
Two weeks later, researchers secretly timed how long each child chose to draw during ordinary free play. They did not know they were being watched.
Results: Children who expected a reward later spent about half as much free-choice time drawing as children in the other two groups. Their drawings were also rated lower in quality. The unexpected-reward group did not differ from the control.
Conclusion: Promising a salient, expected reward for an already-interesting activity can undermine intrinsic motivation to do it. It was the expectation of the reward that caused the harm, not the reward itself, since the surprise reward caused no damage.
Evaluation: This is a robust, much-replicated finding, and it feeds directly into self-determination theory’s account of how controlling rewards can undermine autonomy. Its scope, however, is genuinely contested.
A meta-analysis of 128 experiments found tangible, expected rewards reduce free-choice intrinsic motivation, while verbal praise enhances it (Deci et al., 1999). A later re-analysis argued the effect is limited, not pervasive (Cameron et al., 2001). Rewards for meeting a high standard can raise interest rather than harm it.
Read together, the safest approach targets specific behavior or quality, such as behavior-specific praise, and is used carefully on tasks people already enjoy.
Contemporary Research
Research on positive reinforcement has moved from single demonstrations toward large syntheses. Two recent meta-analyses stand out.
Token Economies Still Work, and the Details Matter
Aim: Kim, Fienup, Oh, and Wang (2022) set out to measure how well classroom token economies work and which design choices drive their success.
Method: Following PRISMA guidelines, they synthesized 24 token-economy studies from general- and special-education classrooms, kindergarten through fifth grade. They coded eight procedural components, such as the type of backup reward and how quickly tokens were earned.
Results: Token economies produced large effect sizes in both general- and special-education classrooms, showing it transfers beyond the specialist settings where first tested. Which specific components were used differed systematically between classroom types.
Conclusion: Contingent token reinforcement is an effective, generalizable classroom-management practice, and knowing which components matter gives teachers levers to fine-tune it. Its limits are a K-5 focus and an open question about whether gains last once the token system is withdrawn.
Teacher Praise Is Cheap, Evidence-Based, and Under-Used
Consistent with this, evidence on the cheapest form of positive reinforcement, teacher praise, keeps accumulating.
A meta-analysis of school-based coaching found that behavior-specific praise was among the practices teachers adopted most readily. Coaching reliably increased how often teachers used it and improved student outcomes (LaBrot et al., 2024).
Whether the reinforcer is a token or a specific word of praise, well-designed positive reinforcement produces reliable gains, and long-term maintenance remains the open frontier.
Further Information
References
Ackerman, C. E. (2022). Positive Reinforcement in Psychology.
Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). The token economy: A motivational system for therapy and rehabilitation. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392017
Chen, C., Zhang, K. Z., Gong, X., & Lee, M. (2019). Dual mechanisms of reinforcement reward and habit in driving smartphone addiction: the role of smartphone features. Internet Research.
Dad, H., Ali, R., Janjua, M. Z. Q., Shahzad, S., & Khan, M. S. (2010). Comparison of the frequency and effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcement practices in schools. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3 (1), 127-136.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Dezfouli, A., & Balleine, B. W. (2012). Habits, action sequences and reinforcement learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35 (7), 1036-1051.
Diedrich, J. L. (2010). Motivating students using positive reinforcement (Doctoral dissertation).
Dozier, C. L., Foley, E. A., Goddard, K. S., & Jess, R. L. (2019). Reinforcement. The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development, 1-10.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gunter, P. L., & Coutinho, M. J. (1997). Negative reinforcement in classrooms: What we”re beginning to learn. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20 (3), 249-264.
Kamery, R. H. (2004, July). Motivation techniques for positive reinforcement: A review. I n Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues. Proceedings (Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 91). Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.
Kim, J. Y., Fienup, D. M., Oh, A. E., & Wang, Y. (2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis of token economy practices in K–5 educational settings, 2000 to 2019. Behavior Modification, 46(6), 1460–1487. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455211058077
Kohler, W. (1924). The mentality of apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
LaBrot, Z. C., Smith, T., Maxime, E., & Lawson, A. (2024). School-based consultation and coaching for promoting teachers’ generalized outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 107, 101379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101379
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035519
Premack, D. (1959). Toward empirical behavior laws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychological Review, 66(4), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040891
Premack, D. (1962). Reversibility of the reinforcement relation. Science, 136(3512), 255–257. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.136.3512.255
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168-172.
Skinner, B. F. (1951). How to teach animals. Freeman.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. SimonandSchuster.com.
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American psychologist, 18 (8), 503.
Smith, S., Ferguson, C. J., & Beaver, K. M. (2018). Learning to blast a way into crime, or just good clean fun? Examining aggressive play with toy weapons and its relation with crime. Criminal behaviour and mental health, 28 (4), 313-323.
Staddon, J. E., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 54 (1), 115-144.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109.
Timberlake, W., & Allison, J. (1974). Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 81(2), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036101
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.
