Untitled

• Motivating operations (MOs) greatly influence operant relations
• MOs have significant implications for those in applied settings.
• This endeavor encourages the utilization of MOs full conceptual system.
• Keywords: Establishing operation, motivating operations

Operant Relations

• Operant relations investigation is vital in applied behavior analysis.
• Functional analysis identifies consequences that reinforce problem behavior.
• Interventions are derived from a functional analysis understanding.
• Developments have greatly impacted people's lives.
• It's important to ask why a consequence is an effective reinforcer. Value of a consequence is in constant flux with behavior probability.
• Establishing operation describes antecedent manipulations on response strength.
• A systematic approach was absent, leaving a gap in operant functional relations understanding.
• Michael drew a distinction between antecedent variables.
• Variables signal reinforcement/punishment availability (discriminative stimuli).
• Variables act on a person's motivation for consequences.

Motivating Operation

• Motivating operation (MO) subsumes the establishing operation.
• The MO momentarily alters consequence value and behavior probability previously associated with consequences.
• In short, MO changes how much you want something and how hard you will work.
• The MO concept has noticeably influenced applied behavior analysis.
• MOs should always be considered by behavior analysts.
• MOs influence any intervention that involves consequences manipulation.
• Reinforcement contingency increases behavior based on motivation degree for that reinforcer.
• Differential reinforcement of an alternative, socially acceptable response, known as FCT, is most frequently used for problem behavior.
• MOs have a notable influence on the FCT process.
• Replacement response won't be evoked without an MO for maintaining consequence.
• The extent to which time-out/response cost suppresses a response depends on current MO for the removed reinforcer.
• Treatments for problem behavior rely on modifications to the reinforcer value maintaining the behavior.
• Noncontingent reinforcement is an example.

Applied Literature

• Comprehensive reviews of MO applied literature are available.
• Elements of the conceptual system are less influential than they should be.
• Includes conditioned motivating operation (CMO).
• The paper aims to shed further light on the MO concept.
• Descriptions of the MO concept relate to real-world examples
• The implications of the MO will be discussed for assessment and intervention.
• This demonstrates the MO's applied importance
• Encourages behavior analysts to use the full conceptual system from Michael and colleagues

Motivating Operation Brief Tutorial

• Diverse psychological research attempted to explain motivation concept.
• MO provides a functional account by relating motivation variables to basic principles.
• MO derives from an evolution in operant terminology.
• Establishing operation (EO) refers to antecedent events that momentarily alter effectiveness or responses (Michael).
• Effects were termed the reinforcer-establishing effect and evocative effect.
• Movements in the opposite direction were within the EO term.
• "Establishing" should mean "establishing or abolishing" (Michael).
• The use of the EO in this manner didn't describe bidirectional effects adequately.
• The motivating operation replaces EO (Laraway)

MO Properties

• MOs refer to antecedent events that share 2 main properties.
  • value-altering effect
  • behavior-altering effect
• Value-altering effect refers to how an event affects the effectiveness of stimuli function as reinforcement/punishment.
• Establishing operations, referred to as EO, establish the effectiveness of reinforcement or punishment
• Abolishing operation (AO) abolishes the effectiveness of reinforcement or punishment.
• A drink's value for an athlete is established as reinforcement after a run, whereas it is abolished after large quantities of water.
• Behavior-altering effect says that an EO evokes behaviors previously associated with events it establishes as reinforcers.
• An AO abates behavior associated with events it abolishes as reinforcers.
• An athlete who completed a run is more likely to display behaviors associated with drinking, such as walking to a fountain.
• Probability of the athlete displaying the same behavior abates after drinking lots of water.
• MO may alter dimensions of behavior like latency, magnitude, or relative frequency (Michael).

Multiple Effects

• MOs have multiple and simultaneous effects.
• Multiple concurrent operants are available to the individual in natural contexts.
• MO may alter response allocation between different behaviors.
• A disabled girl was likely to play with her mother after time alone.
• She was aso likely to play with toys following periods with maternal attention.
• An event may function as an EO and AO for responses maintained by different consequences.
• Behaviors may be influenced by multiple MOs from the same response class.
• Value of noncontingent escape may be influenced by sleep, request difficulty, and so on.
• A single stimulus change, such as attention deprivation may function as an MO and reinforcement/punishment.
• Deprivation of attention may function as an EO for attention-maintained behavior
• Deprivation of attention can also function as a type of punishment for any preceding behavior to the event.
• Giving food may reinforce food-maintained behaviors, but may abolish food as a reinforcer.
• The MO needs empirical verification; however, it is critical that the importance is recognized in applied settings.

MOs vs Discriminative Stimuli

• It is important to draw a clear distinction between MOs and discriminative stimuli.
• Discriminative stimuli are events associated with reinforcement availability or non-availability.
• A green light signals soda availability and a red light denotes unavailability are examples.
• McDevitt & Fantino attempted to expand discriminative stimulus to account for MOs.
• However, it holds few benefits.
• Consider the influence of food deprivation on responses maintained by food access.
• Ask "Is the consequence more available or more valuable after deprivation?"
• The antecedent is likely a discriminative stimulus if the reinforcer is more available.
• Food access is not more likely when you are food deprived, so food deprivation isn't a discriminative stimulus.
• Rather access to food is more valuable when you are food deprived, so food deprivation is an MO.
• A second question may be asked more systematically.
• Asked, "Does the antecedent event meet both requirements of the definition of a discriminative stimulus?"
• An event is a discriminative stimulus if reinforcement is available with a response in its presence; and unavailable without it.
• When an individual is food deprived (reinforcement as food access is available for preparing snacks).
• When not food deprived, food access remains available should the person perform snack preparation so the second test fails.
• The same logic applies to behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement.
• Demand onset must function as a discriminative stimulus; escape from the demand must be available in its presence, not absence.
• Escape must be an effective reinforcer in both the presence and absence.
• It is not possible to withhold escape in the absence of the demand, and escape isn't a reinforcer in the absence of the demand.
• The demand functions as an MO because its onset establishes its own removal as an effective type of reinforcement.
• Provenance of MOs is an important consideration for ABA practitioners.
• How events acquire value- and behavior-altering effects can greatly impact applied contexts.
• Behavior analysts tended to overemphasize events that acquire value from evolutionary history.
• Behavior analysts have neglected those events that acquire value from an organism's learning history.
• As such, they will focus on the different types of conditioned MOs and their relevance to understanding applied problems.

Unconditioned Motivating Operations

• Certain events acquire value from a person's evolutionary history; these are unconditioned MOs (UMOs).
• Reinforcement deprivation establishes the value of these stimuli as reinforcers.
• Deprivation exerts an evocative effect on behaviors associated with these consequences in the past.
• Satiation of these stimuli abolishes their reinforcing value and abates associated behaviors.
• Deprivation and satiation also influence if contingent removal of primary reinforcement will function as punishment.
• A person must be food deprived for related removal to be an effective punishment.
• Aversive stimulation, such as pain, similarly act as UMOs.
• Unlearned sources reinforce behavior to produce escape from these events.
• Implications of direct UMO modification have been discussed elsewhere.
• Such modifications would involve replacing EOs for problem behavior with AOs.
• Attention-maintained problem behavior was more likely to occur if spent without contact.
• Providing social contact before treatment sessions reduced the occurrence of problem behavior.
• Sleep deprivation functioned as an EO for tangible-maintained aggression of a boy with autism.
• Allowing the boy a nap reduced the occurrence of problem behavior.

Quality of Life

• Direct modification of UMOs for problem behavior frequently involves providing better quality of life for the individual.
• Interventions that only involve MO modification don't disrupt contingencies that maintain problem behavior.
• As such, problem behavior re-emerges whenever the EO for problem behavior is present.

Conditioned Motivating Operations

• Events acquire value based on a person's learning history.
• These events are termed conditioned motivating operations (CMOs).
• Previously neutral events may acquire CMO status after having systematically preceded/been paired with a UMO.
• Three forms of CMOs are surrogate, reflexive, and transitive CMOs.

Surrogate CMO

• A surrogate CMO (CMO-S) is a previously neutral stimulus that alters the effectiveness of other stimuli as reinforcers after temporal association with a UMO.
• The CMO-S acts on the value of consequences under the control of its associated MO.
• A person who always has lunch at midday as an example.
• The time on the clock has discriminative and motivative properties.
• Pairing food deprivation and the time of 12:00 p.m. on a clock, then the former may acquire its own motivative properties.
• That is, the previously neutral stimulus may itself establish the value as food reinforcement and evoke food behavior independent of deprivation.
• Time on the clock may also establish the punishing value of food unavailability and reduce behaviors associated with such delays.
• Effects could occur in the opposite direction such as with water satiation.
• Previously neutral stimulus (seeing an empty glass) may acquire abolishing effects after pairing.
• The onset of such stimuli may abolish future water access reinforcemtn and reduce related behaviors, like going to refill the glass; independent of actual water deprivation.
• Water is no more or less available, but it is less reinforcing.
• A small number of studies show that diverted attention evokes attention-maintained problem behavior.
• It may be that diverted attention functions as a surrogate CEO.
• Situations that involve a caregiver interacting with another person are associated with momentary reductions in social contact .
• Over time, this would acquire establishing and evocative properties.
• If diverted attention were to function there would be higher rates of problem behavior than in attention even if levels were the same.

Weaken the Relation

• One intervention when a CMO-S is implicated in problem behavior is to weaken the relationship between the CMO-S and the EO.
• Providing social contact during diverted attention would terminate the relationship.
• Diverted attention would no longer be associated with decreases.

Reflexive CMO

• Michael described the reflexive CMO constituting a 'promise' or 'threat' CMO.
• The onset of a CMO-R is associated with either improvement or worsening of the person's condition.
• Therefore, its onset alters value of own removal as a type of reinforcement.
• A CMO-R therefore acts on its own reinforcing value and not on that of another stimulus.
• Take a young infant for whom the onset of social stimuli (seeing mother frown) is associated with aversive stimuli like scolding and 'worsening.'
• The onset may establish its own offset as a form of reinforcement and evoke behaviors.
• The onset of social stimuli may be correlated with more provision of effective types of social reinforcement (like a cuddle), 'improving' condition.
• In programs onset of stimuli may be followed social interaction with aversive component with no response.
• The onset of the request ("match green’) may function as a CMO-R and evoke the desired response.
• There have been very demonstration of CMO-R in this context.
• The frequency of aggression was reduced when a stimulus change was correlated with demand removal "safety signals.”

Safety Signals

• These signals may have functioned as CMO-Rs.
• The sequence of wearing gloves (neutral) followed by demands (aversive) may have led to gloves acquiring a properties thereby CMO R.