motivating-operations

# 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.