motivating-operations

name	motivating-operations
description	Use when analyzing or manipulating the antecedent motivational variables that alter the value of consequences and the frequency of behavior — covers EOs, AOs, unconditioned and conditioned MOs, and clinical applications.

Motivating Operations

Conceptual Framework

Jack Michael (1982, 1993, 2000) introduced the concept of motivating operations (MOs) to describe environmental variables that alter two things simultaneously:

1. Value-altering effect: The MO changes the effectiveness of a stimulus as a reinforcer or punisher (momentarily increases or decreases its value).
2. Behavior-altering effect: The MO changes the current frequency of all behavior that has been reinforced or punished by that stimulus.

These two effects are the defining features. An MO is not simply a "setting event" or a vague contextual variable — it has specific, testable effects on reinforcer value and behavior frequency.

Establishing Operations and Abolishing Operations

• Establishing operation (EO): Increases the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of a stimulus and increases the frequency of behavior previously reinforced by that stimulus.

  • Example: Food deprivation is an EO that increases the value of food as a reinforcer and increases the frequency of food-seeking behavior.

• Abolishing operation (AO): Decreases the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of a stimulus and decreases the frequency of behavior previously reinforced by that stimulus.

  • Example: Eating to satiation is an AO that decreases the value of food and decreases food-seeking behavior.

Unconditioned Motivating Operations (UMOs)

UMOs have value-altering and behavior-altering effects without prior learning. They are products of evolutionary history.

UMO	Value-Altering Effect	Behavior-Altering Effect
Food deprivation	Increases value of food as reinforcer	Increases food-seeking behavior
Food satiation	Decreases value of food	Decreases food-seeking behavior
Water deprivation	Increases value of water	Increases water-seeking behavior
Sleep deprivation	Increases value of rest/sleep	Increases rest-seeking behavior
Activity deprivation	Increases value of physical activity	Increases activity-seeking behavior
Aversive stimulation (pain, extreme temperature, loud noise)	Increases value of removal of the aversive as reinforcer	Increases escape/avoidance behavior

Clinical relevance: A child who has had unlimited access to iPad (satiation/AO) will not work for iPad access in a therapy session. A child who has been deprived of social attention may find attention more reinforcing, increasing attention-seeking behavior including problem behavior maintained by attention.

Conditioned Motivating Operations (CMOs)

CMOs acquire their value-altering and behavior-altering effects through learning. Laraway et al. (2003) described three subtypes:

Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)

A stimulus that has been paired with a UMO acquires the same MO effects. The CMO-S is a conditioned establishing or abolishing operation that functions as a surrogate for the UMO.

• Example: A stimulus consistently paired with painful stimulation (e.g., the sight of a dentist's office) acquires establishing effects for escape/avoidance behavior, even before any painful stimulation occurs.
• Clinical: Stimuli associated with aversive instructional conditions may function as CMO-Ss that evoke problem behavior before demands are even placed.

Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)

A stimulus that signals the onset of a worsening condition becomes an EO for behavior that removes or avoids that stimulus. The stimulus itself becomes aversive because it signals something worse.

• Example: A teacher's warning ("If you don't sit down, you'll lose recess") is a CMO-R. The warning signals an impending worsening condition (loss of recess), establishing the warning itself as a conditioned aversive and evoking behavior that removes the warning (e.g., sitting down).
• Clinical: Pre-task instructions can function as CMO-Rs when they signal upcoming demands, evoking escape behavior before the demand is even presented.

Transitive CMO (CMO-T)

A stimulus that makes a particular reinforcer available — not by changing its value, but by creating a condition in which a specific behavior is required to access the reinforcer.

• Example: A locked door (CMO-T) does not change the value of going outside but establishes the key as a conditioned reinforcer and evokes behavior that produces the key. The locked door makes going outside "require" the key.
• Clinical: A puzzle with a missing piece is a CMO-T that establishes the missing piece as a conditioned reinforcer and evokes manding (requesting) behavior for the piece. This is the foundation of incidental teaching and contrived mand training.

MOs vs Discriminative Stimuli

This is a frequent source of confusion. The distinction is critical:

Feature	Motivating Operation (MO)	Discriminative Stimulus (SD)
Primary effect	Alters the value of a consequence	Signals the availability of a consequence
Mechanism	Changes reinforcer/punisher effectiveness	Evokes behavior because it was correlated with reinforcement
Value alteration	Yes — changes how reinforcing/punishing a stimulus is	No — does not change the value of the consequence
Example	Deprivation makes food more valuable	The restaurant sign signals food is available

A single stimulus can have both MO and SD properties. A teacher presenting a demand both signals that compliance will be reinforced (SD) and may establish escape as a reinforcer (EO) if the demand is aversive.

Clinical Applications

Contriving EOs to Teach Mands

Mand training requires an EO in place for the target reinforcer. Without an EO, there is no motivation to mand.

1. Deprivation: Restrict access to preferred items before sessions.
2. Interrupted chain: Set up a behavioral chain and withhold a necessary item (CMO-T). The child must mand for the missing item to complete the chain.
3. Blocked response: Place a preferred item in view but out of reach, or in a container the child cannot open independently.
4. Missing item: Present an activity with a required component removed (e.g., paper but no crayon).
5. Wrong item: Deliberately provide the wrong item, establishing an EO for the correct item and evoking a mand.

Noncontingent Reinforcement (NCR) as an AO

NCR provides the reinforcer on a fixed-time schedule independent of behavior. By providing free access to the reinforcer, NCR functions as an abolishing operation — it reduces the value of the reinforcer and thereby reduces the problem behavior maintained by that reinforcer.

• For attention-maintained behavior: Provide attention on a time-based schedule regardless of behavior.
• For tangible-maintained behavior: Provide regular access to preferred items.
• For escape-maintained behavior: Reduce demand density or provide scheduled breaks.

NCR is effective precisely because of its AO function. It "uses up" the motivation that drives the problem behavior.

Demand Fading to Reduce Escape EOs

When task demands function as aversive stimulation (establishing escape as a reinforcer), gradually increasing demands from low to high density allows the individual to contact reinforcement for compliance at low demand levels, reducing the overall aversive value of the instructional context.

Strategic Deprivation (with Ethical Constraints)

Ensuring relative deprivation of session reinforcers increases their effectiveness. However:

• Never deprive individuals of basic needs (food, water, sleep, safety).
• Deprivation strategies must be approved in the behavior plan and by caregivers.
• Use natural deprivation (e.g., scheduling sessions before a preferred activity time) rather than artificial restriction.

Multiple Control

Behavior is often influenced by both MOs and SDs simultaneously. A child may mand for "cookie" because they are hungry (EO) and because they see cookies on the counter (SD). Effective clinical programming considers both sources of control and teaches behavior under appropriate motivational and discriminative conditions.

Key References

• Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 149–155.
• Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16(2), 191–206.
• Michael, J. (2000). Implications and refinements of the establishing operation concept. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(4), 401–410.
• Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 407–414.
• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.