Efficient methods for assessing the relative aversiveness of stimuli are sparse and underresearched. Having access to efficient procedures that can identify aversive stimuli would benefit researchers and practitioners alike. Across three experiments, 13 participants helped to pilot, refine, and test two approaches to identifying negative reinforcers. The first experiment presented two conditions, one in which computerized button pressing started or stopped one of two recorded infant cries (or silence, when the control button was selected). Choices were presented either in a modified observing‐response procedure (i.e., simultaneous observing) or in a modified progressive‐ratio procedure (i.e., committed concurrent progressive ratio; CCPR). Results were favorable though not conclusive on their own. A second experiment, using more distinct stimuli (i.e., one likely aversive, one likely not aversive), replicated the first, and clearer results emerged. Finally, the third experiment tested the stimuli from the second experiment in a CCPR arrangement where sound was terminated contingent on responding and idiosyncratic negative reinforcement hierarchies emerged. The utility of these two procedures is discussed, and future work that addresses the limitations is outlined.

中文翻译：

---

通过同时观察和并发渐进比率程序评估负强化：初步调查

评估刺激相对厌恶性的有效方法很少且研究不足。获得能够识别厌恶刺激的有效程序将使研究人员和从业者受益。在三项实验中，13 名参与者帮助试点、完善和测试了两种识别负面强化物的方法。第一个实验提出了两种条件，其中一种是按下计算机按钮开始或停止两次记录的婴儿哭声中的一个（或静音，当选择控制按钮时）。选择以改良的观察反应程序（即同时观察）或改良的进展比率程序（即承诺并发进展比率；CCPR）的形式提出。结果是有利的，但其本身并不是决定性的。第二个实验使用更独特的刺激（即，一个可能令人厌恶，一个可能不令人厌恶），重复了第一个实验，并出现了更清晰的结果。最后，第三个实验在 CCPR 安排中测试了第二个实验的刺激，其中声音根据响应而终止，并且出现了特殊的负强化层次结构。讨论了这两个过程的实用性，并概述了解决这些限制的未来工作。