Unit 3: Motivation

1. Unit 3: Motivation • Another schizophrenic unit • Motivation from a behavioral perspective: The motivating operation (MO) • Wednesday • Motivation from a traditional I/O perspective • Monday • E3: Wednesday, 10/02

2. Spring Registration • Spring schedule is available for viewing Monday, Sept. 30 • Graduate students can register for classes beginning at 8AM on Monday, Oct. 14 • You should register for your spring classes at 8AM on Monday, Oct. 14! • Some of our classes fill quickly, particularly 6340! And, please help pass the word along!

3. The MO: Introduction to unit • MO material for the unit • Article by me based on a chapter written by Jack Michael (2007, in Cooper, Heron, & Heward) • Excerpt at the end of the study objectives from an article by Olson, Laraway, & Austin about EOs/MOs in OBM • Motivating Operations = Establishing Operations • Concept of the EO was introduced by Michael around 1980 • About 6 years ago, based on an article by Laraway, Snycerski, Poling, & Michael, different terminology was introduced • Article by Olson et al. was published before change, thus the excerpt from their article refers to “UEOs” rather than “UMOs” • I’ll talk about the difference between a UMO (UEO) and a CMO (CEO) in a moment

4. MO Introduction, cont. • We haven’t made much practical use of the MO in OBM with respect to our interventions, so why cover it? • Traditional I/O psychologists criticize behavior analysis because we “ignore motivation” • The MO does play a very important role in our conceptual analyses, and when you read the OBM literature, authors are making considerable use of it (trouble knowing how to handle this concept in this class, difficult, whole unit, but I don’t want to spend a whole unit on it, we haven’t made much use of it. I dropped it at one point but felt I needed to add it back in)

5. Some basics • In common sense terms, behavior is a function of: • Knowledge and motivation: a person must “know how” to do something and “want to” do it • In traditional psychology, “wanting to do something” has been defined and discussed as motivation

6. Some basics • Skinner, early, talked about motivation in terms of three main factors: • Satiation, deprivation, and termination of aversive stimulation • However, recognize, as Skinner did, that reinforcement schedules also play a role in some of the features of behavior that have been attributed to “motivation” by traditional psychologists • VR schedules yield high rates of responding without pauses, for example • Intermittent schedules make behavior more resistant to extinction than an FR1

7. Motivation according to Skinner • Deprivation • Food deprivation makes you “want” food • Water deprivation makes you “want” water • Satiation • Food satiation makes you “want” food less (or not at all) • Water satiation makes you “want” water less (or not at all) • Aversive stimulation • Pain makes you “want” to get rid of the pain • Loud aversive noise makes you “want” to get rid of the noise. • Very high temperature makes you “want” to get cooler (back to motivation according to Skinner; want is not a behavioral way to talk)

8. What does “want” mean behaviorally, then? • Food deprivation • Makes food more reinforcing and • Evokes behaviors that have in the past resulted in food as a consequence • Food satiation • Makes food less reinforcing (or not reinforcing at all) and • Suppresses behaviors that have in the past resulted in food as a consequence

9. Motivating Operations MO: Response ––––> Consequence Time 1 MO (food deprivation): R (go to refrigerator) –––> SR (food) Time 2 MO (food deprivation): A: Makes food reinforcing B: Will evoke going to the refrigerator Time 3 MO (food satiation): A: Makes food less reinforcing B: Will suppress going to the refrigerator

10. So, in general: • A motivating operation • Makes a consequence more or less reinforcing (or punishing) • Evokes or suppresses behavior that has, in the past, resulted in that consequence • Considered a “momentary” variable in the sense that it helps determine what a person will do at that moment in time • If food deprived, you are likely to eat • If in pain, you are likely to take an aspirin • Helps determine which behavior a person will engage in at a particular moment in time • If really “hungry” and you are also a “little” tired, you are likely to eat rather than take a nap (also important - continuum, not all or none)

11. Difference between UMOs and CMOs, NFE • UMO = Unconditioned motivating operation • UMOs make unconditioned reinforcers more or less reinforcing or unconditioned punishers more or less punishing • And evoke or suppress behavior that has been reinforced or punished by unconditioned reinforcers or unconditioned punishers • CMO = Conditioned motivating operation • CMOs make conditioned reinforcers more or less reinforcing or conditioned punishers more or less punishing • And evoke or suppress behavior that has been reinforced or punished by conditioned reinforcers or conditioned punishers (Olson et al. excerpt used the term UEO; I don’t talk about the differences in my paper; most MOs that are relevant in business settings are CMOs, but not all – caffeine or nicotine deprivation would be UMOs, for example)

12. Why do we need a new term for “motivation?” • The goals of science are to explain, control, and then predict the phenomenon of interest • This is done through the discovery of “If-then” laws • Our principles in behavior analysis are “if-then” laws just as the laws of physics • If water is heated to 100 degrees centigrade at sea level, then characteristics result which we term boiling • If an object in a vacuum on earth is dropped, then it will fall a distance expressed by 1/2gt2 • If a behavior is followed by a reinforcer, then it will increase in frequency in the future • If a behavior is reinforced in the presence of a stimulus and not in its absence, then the stimulus will become an SD and evoke the behavior when it is presented (I am going to have to get a little conceptual here and deal a bit with philosophy of science)

13. Why do we need a new term for “motivation?” • In order to determine the “if” in an “if-then” relationship, you must be able to reliably observe it and measure it • Motivation as typically conceptualized • Motivation is an internal state, sometimes perceived as genetic, sometimes perceived as socially learned (nature vs. nurture) • You can’t measure it directly because it is internal; thus you must infer it from behavior or ask individuals to self-report • Motivating operation places “motivation” in the environment • We can “see it” and we can measure it independently of behavior or self-reports (which we know are unreliable) • Thus, in keeping with our other principles of behavior and the principles of other hard sciences, we can observe it and manipulate it, and determine its effects on behavior

14. If we can’t predict behavior in complex settings, which we often can’t, does that invalidate our science of behavior? A physics analogy If a person dropped a feather from the top of the Washington Monument would a physicist be able to predict where it would land? (complexity of variables and unknown variables – we don’t have access to a person’s complete reinforcement history nor do we always have access to motivational variables that affect an individual)

15. Our own worst enemy for years:Reinforcement = Motivation • If behavior isn’t occurring, it must be due to the fact that it is not being sufficiently reinforced • And, it is often the case that many behavioral problems can be solved by altering consequences, but not all (OK- back to the MO. In one sense, it is quite understandable that we have been criticized by others for ignoring motivation)

16. SO1A: Two reasons for success in applied settings, despite ignoring MOs • Often behavioral problems are due to problems with consequences: insufficient reinforcement or punishment Most OBM problems can be solved by altering antecedents and consequences • Most reinforcers in applied settings, particularly OBM settings consist of generalized conditioned reinforcers. GSrs are usually effective at any time because they have been paired with so many other reinforcers Praise, money, signs of success, “funny money” tokens, etc.

17. SO1B: Money as an example In our society, money is often paired with food when we are food deprived, water when we are water deprived, relief from pain when we are in pain - Therefore, money will function as a reinforcer whenever a person is food deprived, water deprived, in pain, or some combination of them. Because generalized Srs are paired with so many other reinforcers when those reinforcers are deprived, they will be reinforcing almost at any time - because one or more of the relevant MOs are present almost at any time. (same for praise; emphasis really should be on the MO, not the number of reinforcers)

18. SO 2: Name and describe the two main cojoint effects that MOs have • Value Altering Effect: They alter the reinforcing/punishing value of a consequence. That is, they make a consequence more or less reinforcing. (Note carefully: they do not make a behavior more or less reinforcing; they make a consequence more or less reinforcing!) • Behavior Altering Effect: They immediately evoke or suppress behaviors that have resulted in the consequence in the past • In lay terms: MOs (a) make an individual “want” or “not want” a consequence (unacceptable) and (b) immediately increase or decrease the frequency/likelihood of the response that produced that consequence in the past. (terms are very descriptive)

19. SO2: Examples of the cojoint effects of MOs-Value Altering and Behavior Altering Effects Examples of MOs that increase the reinforcing value of a consequence and evoke behaviors: • Food deprivation (1) makes food more reinforcing and (2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with food (e.g., going to the refrigerator; asking for food). • Becoming too cold (1) makes warmth more reinforcing and (2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with warmth (e.g., putting on a jacket; turning up the heat).

20. SO 2: More examples of the cojoint effects: Value Altering and Behavior Altering Effects Examples of MOs that decrease the reinforcing value of a consequence and immediately suppress behaviors: • Food satiation (1) makes food less reinforcing and (2) immediately suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with food (e.g., suppresses going to the refrigerator and asking for food). • Becoming too warm (1) makes warmth less reinforcing and (2) immediately suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with warmth (e.g., suppresses putting on a jacket and turning up the heat).

21. SO 2: Main effects of MOs cont. • Value Altering Effect • MOs can increase or decrease the reinforcing value of a consequence • More reinforcing: Reinforcer Establishing Effect • Less reinforcing: Reinforcer Abolishing Effect • Behavior Altering Effect • MOs can immediately evoke or suppress behavior that has preceded the relevant reinforcer in the past • Evoke behavior: Evocative Effect • Suppress behavior: Abative Effect (descriptiveness of terms)

22. SO 3: Table 2 - MOs with a Reinforcer Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect • Pain increase (1) makes a decrease in pain more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, terminated pain (taking an aspirin). • Sleep deprivation (1) makes sleep more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep (getting into bed, turning off lights, turning off the ringer on your cell phone, etc.) (sleep – physiological state, not a behavior; If establishing, also evocative: ee)

23. SO 3: More MOs with a Reinforcer Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect • Being too warm (1) makes becoming cooler more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, resulted in becoming cooler (taking off a jacket). • Salt ingestion (1) makes water/liquids more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, led to water/liquids (getting a glass of water, going to a water fountain, etc.)

24. SO 4: Table 3 - MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect • Sleep satiation (1) makes sleep less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep (suppresses lying down, turning off the cell phone, pulling the shades down, etc.). • Pain decrease* (1) makes a decrease in pain less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, terminated pain. (just like satiation!) *Remember to think about a continuum here: you can have a lot of pain, or not much pain. If you don’t have much pain, then a further decrease in pain is not going to be very reinforcing. (As go together: aa)

25. SO 4: More MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect • Being too cold (1) makes becoming cooler less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to becoming cooler. (suppresses taking off a sweater, turning on a fan, etc.) • Activity (1) makes more activity and physical exertion less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to activity (suppresses putting on running shoes, putting on exercise clothes, getting your bike) (just like sleep, activity as a physiological phenomenon – i.e., depletion of oxygen in cells)

26. SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the Value Altering Effect • What is the reinforcer establishing effect of being too cold? • What is the reinforcer establishing effect of a sudden increase in bright sunshine? • What is the reinforcer abolishing effect of being too cold? • What is the reinforcer abolishing effect of activity NOTE CAREFULLY: It is the consequence that becomes more or less reinforcing, NOT THE BEHAVIOR. Behaviors cannot become more or less reinforcing!!

27. SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the Behavior Altering Effect • What is the evocative effect of being too cold? • What is the evocative effect of a sudden increase in bright sunshine? • What is the abative effect of being too cold? • What is the abative effect of sleep? NOTE CAREFULLY: It is not correct to say that the abative effect “increases not eating (food sat) or not taking off a sweater (becoming too cold).” Why isn’t it correct??

28. SO 5: MOs are often confused with SDs • 5A How are they similar? • They both precede behavior • They both evoke behavior (but for very different reasons) • 5B How do they differ? • SDs are correlated with the differential availability of a reinforcer (whether or not you can get the reinforcer) • MOs are correlated with the differential effectiveness of a reinforcer (that is, the extent to which the consequence is “reinforcing” to you at that moment in time) (confusion is understandable)

29. MOs versus SDs, cont. • Differential effectiveness vs. differential availability of a consequence are different • You may be hungry (food deprived) and thus food is an effective reinforcer, however, it is not available. On the other hand: • Food may be available, but you may not be hungry. • MO: Related to whether or not you are hungry • SD: Related to whether or not food is available

30. SO 5: SDs vs. MOs (diagrams in article, NFE) Rat example: • MO: (food dep): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> SR (food) • MO: (food dep): S∆ (light off): R (press lever)-->Ext (no fd) Food is reinforcing, but only available when SD is present • MO (food dep): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> SR (food) • MO (food sat): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> Food, but not SR Food is available, but only reinforcing when food dep.

31. SO 5: SDs vs. MOs, cont. Human example (sometimes confusing because of verbal beh): • MO (food dep): SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> SR (food) • MO (food dep): S∆ (hardware store): R (walk in store)-->Ext (no food) Food is reinforcing, but only available when SD is present • MO (food dep): SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> SR (food) • MO (food sat): SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> Food, but not SR Food is available, but only reinforcing when food dep.

32. SO6: (NFE) MOs also affect conditioned reinforcers • Value Altering Effect of an MO: • The MO increases or decreases the reinforcing value of the consequence • Not only does the MO affect the reinforcing value of SRs, it also affects the reinforcing value of any and all Srs (conditioned reinforcers) that have been repeatedly paired with the SR in the past. (read SO)

33. SO 6: Srs that can be affected by food deprivation and satiation (NFE) • Food deprivation would not only make food more reinforcing it would also make the following Srs more reinforcing: • Sight and smell of food • Pictures of food • The word “food” • The sight of the refrigerator • Alternatively, food satiation would make the above Srs less reinforcing (sign in the distance, can’t quite make it out)

34. SO6: UMOs vs. CMOs again (NFE) • When MOs affect unconditioned reinforcers and behaviors reinforced by unconditioned reinforcers, we call the MO an Unconditioned Motivating Operation • When MOs affect conditioned reinforcers and behaviors reinforced by conditioned reinforcers, we call the MO a Conditioned Motivating Operation • Food deprivation is an • UMO for food and any behavior reinforced by food, but a • CMO for a picture of food or the word “food” and behavior reinforced by those stimuli I am not requiring that distinction for this class - nor am I going to talk about the three types of CEOs, although Olson et al. do)

35. SO8: Some OBM examples • Feedback Assume: R (making widets) ––> Sc (sight of completed widget) The sight of the completed widget is not a reinforcer Now: MO (fbk): R (making widgets)––> Sr (sight of completed widget) Feedback may: (a) make the sight of the completed widget reinforcing - the reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke making widgets - the evocative effect. Why not an SD? The sight of the completed widget was present before the feedback, but was not reinforcing. Hence, in this example, the feedback cannot be an SD because the sight of the completed widget was available even when feedback wasn’t. No S delta condition, but give a more complete answer:) (students seem to have trouble with these and I can’t figure out why, so if you don’t understand them, please ask questions!))

36. SO8: Some OBM examples • Irritation at the supervisor (you are angry at supv/union conflicts) Assume: MO (no irritation at supv.): R (work slowly) ––> Sc (signs of distress/anger by supv.) The signs of distress/anger (frowns, raised voice) by the supervisor are not reinforcers, and may actually be punishers Now: MO (irritation at supervisor): R (work slowly, etc.)––> Sr (signs of distress by supv.) Irritation at supv. may: (a) make signs of distress/anger by supervisor reinforcing - the reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke sabotage, work slow down, etc. - the evocative effect. Why isn’t the irritation an SD?

37. SO8: Some OBM examples • Work sampling by supervisor ( objective measurement of performance) Assume: R (working) ––> Sr/Sp (supervisor praises or criticizes your work) However, the supervisor’s praise and criticism are not reinforcers or punishers - why? He is not accurately evaluating your performance or doesn’t understand it. Now: MO (work sampling): R (working) ––> Sr/Sp (praise/criticism) Work sampling may: (a) make praise/criticism by supervisor reinforcing/punishing- the reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke harder work - the evocative effect. Why isn’t the work sampling an SD? When could it be an SD as opposed to an MO? (not in SOs) (remember Komaki, U2)

38. SO9: The UMO of activity deprivation/satiation and monitoring performance • Olson et al. example Employees observe a monitoring screen that tracks the operation of expensive machines. Employees need to make changes to the machines if they see something that is out of tolerance to avoid very costly defects in the product. Fidgeting, pacing, looking around are incompatible with and disrupt the vigilance task • Can be generalized to any situation that requires on-going vigilance: i.e., security monitors

39. Activity as an MO • Activity deprivation (Table 2) • Makes activity more reinforcing • Reinforcer establishing effect • Evokes behavior that has, in the past, resulted in activity • Evocative effect • Activity satiation (Table 3) • Makes activity less reinforcing • Reinforcer abolishing effect • Suppresses behavior that has, in the past, resulted in activity • Abative effect (not activity as a behavior, physiological phenomenon - depletion of oxygen in cells)

40. Analysis of example MO: Activity deprivation - monitoring for long periods of time: Makes activity reinforcing - reinforcer establishing effect Evokes fidgeting, pacing, looking around- evocative effect Solution? Change the MO as follows: MO: Activity satiation - taking stretching/exercise breaks: Makes activity less reinforcing - reinforcer abolishing effect Suppresses fidgeting, pacing, looking around- abative effect

41. SO9: Potential advantages of this type of MO manipulation (NFE) • Easier, more effective/efficient interventions • One intervention without considering MO: • Observe and reinforce mechanics for wearing/keeping on safety goggles • Change MOs instead first (note both Sp and MO manipulation) • Buy goggles that don’t obscure vision and don’t fit well – eliminating the MO for taking them off (as well as the punishment for putting them on) • Increase quality of working life Eliminating aversive environmental events in the environment (relevant to MOs that relate to aversive antecedent events - too hot, too noisy, latex gloves don’t fit well and make it difficult to manipulate objects, etc.)

42. SO9: Another potential advantage of considering the MO in our analyses • May help us account for momentary differences in performance. Why is performance better at one time rather than another? • Fatigue causing error (14 hour shifts in hospitals?) Fatigue and hunger causing PSY 6450 students to make more errors at the end of class and become “inattentive.” Real problem with 3 hour classes! • Nicotine deprivation causing inattentiveness, “haziness,” inability to concentrate I really would prefer when I fly that all of the pilots be nonsmokers…

43. SO10: Discussion Question In the following example, analyze and diagram the possible behavioral functions of the goal as an SD and/or MO. The customer service division of an electric utility is interested in how long it takes to turn on an electric meter at a home after a customer requests it. The customer service reps track the number of days from request for service to meter turn-on and thus have on-going individual feedback available. The manager sets a goal of a six day turnaround time. In addition, she establishes a monthly bonus when workers average a six-day turnaround. Turn around time improves.

44. Questions over SOs 1-10?

45. Traditional Motivational Theory From Aamodt

46. SO11: Conceptual differences - motivation • Aamodt’s definition The internal force that drives a worker to action as well as external factors that encourage action • How can you directly measure an “internal force?” You can’t. Thus, from this traditional perspective motivation must be inferred from “action” - (performance, behavior) • The MO places “motivation” in the environment

47. SO11: Conceptual differences - motivation • What is the important conceptual and empirical advantage? You can measure “motivation” objectively, independently from behavior • From a philosophy of science perspective, is there a circular reasoning problem? We know a person is motivated because she/he performs well; the person performs well because she/he is motivated (I have already dealt with this, but it is important, so….explanatory fiction)

48. SO12: MO and driving a worker to action – translation of the term “drive” • The MO: • Determines what is and what is not reinforcing at a particular moment and • Evokes or abates behaviors that have, in the past, resulted in that consequence

49. Predisposition to be motivated: Two complex conceptual issues (NFE) • Aamodt includes a section on Is an employee predisposed to being motivated? • His wording is very careful here: Psychologists have postulated that some employees are more predisposed to to being motivated than are others • Note than he does not attribute the “predisposition” to either an internal innate trait/drive/motive or to external contingencies that may historically have been responsible for someone having such a predisposition (nature vs. nurture, or innate vs. learned): He leaves that open • Also note that in this section, he talks about some very practical environmental things companies can do to affect factors that “predispose” an individual to be motivated (i.e., self-esteem workshops, experience with success, positive supervisory feedback and interactions)

50. SO13: Predisposition to be motivated Self-esteem (NFE): how to analyze • Self-esteem, similar to some of the other variables in this section, is being viewed as an antecedent causal variable Good self-esteem High motivation  Good performance • Thus, interventions are aimed at influencing a person’s self-esteem, which will then influence motivation and, finally, performance • A behavioral perspective views this differently: The same environmental variables that affect performance also influence a person’s self-esteem (emotion, attitude) R Sr Performance Signs of success/praise/rewards CS  CR (good self-esteem) (first on this slide; thus, our interventions – feedback, rewards, praise, training, task clarification – would directly target the performance; good self-esteem, feeling good about one-self would come as a by-product of the same interventions; example Cole&Hopkins, 1995)