Motivating Operations

Motivating Operations Maryland ABA Baltimore, November 18th, 2005 Jack Michael, Ph.D. Psychology Department Western Michigan University

I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic features: Brief history B. Some important details Motivating Operations Overview II. Motivative vs Discriminative Relations: Part 1 III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations A. UMOs vs CMOs B. Nine main UMOs for humans C. A complication: Multiple effects IV. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 2 V. Conditioned Motivating Operations A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S) B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R) C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T) VI. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis

A. Basic features: Brief history a. Skinner, 1938 & 1953: Motivation (drive) was concerned with the effects of deprivation and aversive stimulation. b. Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950. Deprivation and aversive stimulation are both environmental operations that establishadrive. But the main observable effects of establishing a drive are that something becomes more effective as a reinforcer (is established as a rfer), and relevant behavior becomes more frequent (is evoked). Food deprivation establishes food as a rfer and evokes any behavior that has been rfed with food. Aversive stimulation establishes its own reduction as a rfer, and evokes behavior that has been followed by such a reduction in aversive stimulation. As a term, establishing operation (EO) has two good features: (1) it covers both deprivation and aversive stimulation, and (2) points at the environment rather than at an internal state.

Brief History (continued) Deprivation and aversive stimulation may be too limited. What about salt ingestion, etc. and the sketch of a cat? c. Michael, 1982. Let's use establishing operation (EO) for any variable (deprivation, aversive S, being too warm or too cold, salt ingestion, perspiration, blood loss; and also variables that have an effect only because of a learning history (like Skinner's offer of money for a sketch of a cat, or my example of the sight of a slotted screw holding something on a wall), any variable that: 1. Alters the current reinforcing effectiveness of some S, object, or event. (a dispositional concept) and also 2. Alters the current frequency of all behavior that has obtained that stimulus, object, or event in the past.

Fig. 1 Establishing Operations (EOs): 2 Defining Effects 1. Rfer Establishing 2. Evocative EOs establish the current rein-forcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event. (Andestablish includes the effect in the opposite direction, abolish.) EOs evoke any behavior that has been reinforced by the same stimulus that is altered in rfing effectiveness by the same EO. (Andevoke includes an effect in the opposite direction, abate.) Food deprivation increases and food ingestion decreases the current frequency of any behavior that has been reinforced by food. reinforcing effectiveness of food. Pain increase increases, & pain decrease decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction. current frequency of any behavior that has been rfed by pain reduction. Problems: (1) EO includes both establish and abolish (2) Evocative/abative seems secondary (3) Not just frequency

Fig. 2 MotivatingOperations (MOs): 2 Defining Effects 1. Value-AlteringEffect 2. Behavior-AlteringEffect MOs alter the current reinforcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, event (when/if obtained). MOs alter current frequency, magnitude, etc. of any behavior that has been reinforced by the same stimulus that is altered in value by the same MO. Reinforcer Reinforcer Evocative Effect Abative Effect Abolishing Effect Establishing Effect Food deprivation increases & food ingestion decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of food (when/if obtained). current frequency, magnitude, etc.* of any behavior that has been rfed by food. Pain increase increases, & pain decrease decreases the current frequency, magnitude, etc.* of any behavior rfed by pain reduction. the reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction. *(frequency for short)

Important Details 1. What about MOs for punishers? A reasonable notion, but not much dealt with yet. Nothing surprising--but sometimes overlooked. Most human punishment consists in reducing the availability of reinforcers, so the relevant MO is the MO for the reinforcers that are made less available. Social disapproval usually functions as punishment because some of the rfers controlled by the person who disapproves have been less availalble when disapproval stimuli (frowns, negative verbal behavior) have occurred. MO would be the MOs for those reinforcers. Time-out as punishment is similar. The MO is the MO for the reinforcers that have been unavailable during time-out. Response cost (taking away tokens, money, or reducing the score in a point bank) only works if the things that can be obtained with the tokens, etc. are effective as reinforcers at the time the response cost procedure occurs. The MO is the MO for those things. (maybe gen cond rfer) 2. Generality depends on MO as well as stimulus conditions. 3. A common misunderstanding: Behavior altering effect is secondary.

Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 1 Two requirements for an operant R to occur, SDand MO. Eg., for a rat with a history of food rfmt for lever pressing to press a lever at the present time (1) the current S situation must be similar to the one in which the previous rfmt occurred; (2) the current level of food deprivation must not be too low. SD is related to the past availability of rfmt for the rsp in that stimulus condition; the MO determines the strength of the current value-altering and behavior-altering effects. The MO–SD distinction becomes especially important when we attempt later to distinguish conditioned motivating operations (CMOs) from SDs. Much human behavior is controlled by CMOs, still, it is easier to become fluent with MO concepts by working with UMOs, thus the next section on UMOs.

I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic features: Brief history, EO, MO) B. Some important details (pmt, generality, misunderstand) Motivating Operations Overview II. Motivative vs Discriminative Relations: Part 1 III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations A. UMOs vs CMOs B. Nine main UMOs for humans C. A complication: Multiple effects IV. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 2 V. Conditioned Motivating Operations A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S) B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R) C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T) VI. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis

IIIA. UMOs vs CMOs Value-Altering Effect Behavior-Altering Effect MOs alter the current reinforcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, event (when/if obtained). MOs alter current frequency, latency, magnitude, etc. of any behavior that has been reinforced by the same stimulus that is altered in value by the same MO. Reinforcer Reinforcer Evocative Effect Abative Effect Abolishing Effect Establishing Effect ". . .that has been rfed" implies a learning history for both UMOs and CMOs If these relations are unlearned, then the MO is a UMO. If learned, then the MO is a CMO UMO: We are born with the capacity to be reinforced by food when food deprived (rfer-establishing effect), but appropriate behavior is learned. CMO: The capacity to be reinforced by receiving a key when we have to open a locked door (rfer-establishing effect) depends on our history with doors and keys.

IIIB. Nine main human UMOs Five deprivation and satiation UMOs: food, water, sleep, activity, and oxygen (NQR). UMOs related to sex. (could be deprivation type) Two UMOs related to uncomfortable temperatures: being too cold or too warm. A UMO consisting of an increase or a decrease in painful stimulation.

IIIB1. Five Deprivation/Satiation UMOs:food, water, sleep, activity, and oxygen. Reinforcer establishing effect: X deprivation increases the effectiveness of X as a reinforcer. Evocative effect: X deprivation increases the current frequency of all behavior that has been reinforced with X. Reinforcer abolishing effect: X consumption decreases the effectiveness of X as a reinforcer. Abative effect: X consumption decreases the current frequency of all behavior that has been reinforced with X.

In the human, learning plays such a strong role in determining sexual behavior that the role of unlearned environment-behavior relations is not well understood. IIIB2. UMOs related to sex A good deal is known about such relations for nonhumans. For many mammals, time passage and environmental conditions related to successful reproduction (light and temperature) produce hormonal changes in the female that as UMOs cause contact with a male to be an effective reinforcer for the female. These changes produce visual changes in some aspect of the female's body and elicit chemical attractants that function as UMOs for the male, making contact with a female a rfer and evoking appropriate learned and unlearned behavior. These hormonal changes may also evoke behaviors by the female (e.g. a sexually receptive posture) that function as UMOs for sexual behavior by the male. Sex deprivation seems to function as a UMO for both genders.

IIIB3. Temperature UMOs, Too Cold (Too Warm) Becoming too cold (too warm), reinforcer establishing effect: Increases reinforcing effectiveness of an increase (of a decrease) in temperature. Evocative effect: Increases the current frequency of all behavior that has been rfed by an increase (a decrease) in temperature. Return to normal temperature, reinforcer abolishing effect: Decreases reinforcing effectiveness of becoming warmer (becoming cooler). Abative effect: Decreases current frequency of all behavior that has been rfed by an increase (a decrease) in temperature.

IIIB4. Painful Stimulation UMO Evocative Effect: An increase in pain increases current frequency of all types of behavior that have been reinforced by pain reduction. Reinforcer Establishing Effect: An increase in pain increases the current reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction. Reinforcer Abolishing Effect: A decrease in pain decreases the current reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction. Abative Effect: A decrease in pain decreases the current frequency of all types of behavior that have been reinforced with pain reduction. The pain MO is a useful model for motivation by any form of worsening. Any change from S1 to S2, where the frequency, quality, or amount of rfmt in S2 has been less than was available in S1, or where the frequency, intensity, duration of punishment has been greater in S2 than it was in S1 is like an increase in pain. A change in the other direction is like a decrease in pain.

I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic features (brief history, EO, MO) B. Some important details (pmt, generality, misunderstand) Motivating Operations II. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 1 III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations A. UMOs vs CMOs B. Nine main UMOs for humans C. A complication: Multiple effects IV. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 2 V. Conditioned Motivating Operations A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S) B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R) C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T) VI. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis

MO evocative/abative effect plus effect as SR or SP Many behavioral interventions are chosen because of their MO behavior-altering effects (evocative or abative effects), or because of their reinforcement or punishment effects. 1. MO weakening is also reinforcement. When an MO is weakened to decrease some undesirable behavior (food satiation to reduce food stealing, attention satiation to reduce disruptive behavior relevant to attention as a reinforcer) some behavior will be reinforced by the satiation operation. (Maybe not a problem, but could be.) 1. Reinforcement is also MO weakening. Food, attention, toys, etc. used a reinforcers to develop new behavior will weaken the MO, thus ongoing rfers will be less effective and evocative effect will be weakened. (If reinforcers are small the effect may not be counter productive, but it could be.)

4. Practical Implications (cont'd.) 2. MO strengthening is also punishment. E.g. food deprivation increased to enhance its value-altering and beh-altering effects; similarly with attention deprivation. But, some behavior will be punished unless deprivation onset is very gradual. And even with slow build-up deprivation effects, if they have been systematically related to a stim condition, then the presentation of that stimulus will function as punishment. 2. Punishment is also MO strengthening. Considering that many punishers are stim conditions that are related to a lower availability of various kinds of reinforcement, the punishment operation will be like deprivation. E.g. after a time-out procedure, the reinforcing effects of obtaining a reinforcer will be greater when one is obtained (perhaps by stealing) and the behavior that has gotten such reinforcers will be stronger.

I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic features (brief history, EO, MO) B. Some important details (pmt, generality, misunderstand) Motivating Operations II. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 1 III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations A. UMOs vs CMOs B. Nine main UMOs for humans C. A complication: Multiple effects IV. Motivative vs. Discrimin Relations: Part 2 V. Conditioned Motivating Operations A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S) B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R) C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T) VI. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis

IV. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 2 An SD evokes its R b/c that type of R has been reinforced in the SD and has occurred w/o rfmt--has been extinguished in S∆. But, occurring w/o rfmt in S∆ would be behaviorally irrelevant unless the unavailable rfmt would have been effective as rfmt if it had been obtained. Not receiving a neutral stimulus is not extinction. This means that the relevant MO for the rfmt in SD must also be in effect during S∆. In everyday* language, for the development of an SD---->R relation, an organism must have wanted something in the SD, R occurred, and rfmt followed; and also must have wanted it in the S∆, R occurred, and rfmt did not follow. (*I'll admit that this is not exactly everyday language.)

B/c deprivation MOs develop gradually they are not often claimed to be SDs. However pain onset and some other UMOs are like SDs in their sudden occurrence. So does a sudden increase in pain qualify as an SDfor beh rfed by pain reduction? (other behavior?)(I will argue that it does not.) Two SD requirements: (1) R was rfed by pain reduction in SD (pain present) and (2) occurred w/o pain reduction rfmt. in S∆ (when pain was absent), and the relevant MO (painful S) must have been in effect during S∆ (a clear contradiction). (1) Pain may meet the first requirement. (necessary but not sufficient) (2) R may have occurred w/o pain reduction in S∆ (when pain was not present), but the relevant MO (painful S) was specified as not present. Thus pain absence fails to qualify as an S∆, so pain does not qualify as an SD. However, pain onset clearly has the two defining features of an an MO: a reinforcer establishing effect and an evocative effect.

IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations: Three kinds. Unconditioned motivating operations (UMOs) are events, operations, stimuli, with unlearned value-altering (reinforcer-establishing or reinforcer abolishing) effects. Conditioned motivating operations (CMOs) are variables that alter the reinforcing effectiveness (value) of other stimuli, objects, and events but only as a result of a learning history. There would seem to be three kinds of CMOs: Surrogate CMO, CMO-S Reflexive CMO, CMO-R Transitive CMO, CMO-T

Description: Stimulus pairing develops a respondent CS, an operant Sr and Sp, possibly an SD. Maybe by pairing an S with an MO, that S will become an MO with same rfer-estab and evocative effects as the MO it was paired with. IVA. CMO Based on Stimulus Pairing Let's call it a surrogate CMO or CMO-S, Example: A stimulus paired with the UMO of being too cold might (1) increase the reinforcing effectiveness of warmth, and (2) evoke behavior that had been so rfed, both more than would be appropriate for the existing temperature. There is some evidence for such a CMO but it is not strong. Also it would not have good survival value. Still, evolution may not work perfectly. Possibly relevant to some emotional MOs. See McGill, P. 1999, JABA, 32, 393-418.

30" 5" R1 tone off shock off tone on shock on tone on shock off R2 R1 = lever press, the avoidance rsp. R2 = chain pull, the escape rsp. IVB1. CMO-R Description: a. Escape-Avoidance The warning stimulus in an avoidance procedure. Animal lab escape-avoidance as a box diagram. R2 (escape rsp) is evoked by shock onset as UMO. Avoidance rsp, R1, is evoked by onset of the warning stimulus. Is it an SD for this response? No because the S∆ condition is defective--there is no MO for the rfmt consisting of tone termination, when tone is not on. CMO-R: Any stimulus that has systematically preceded the onset of any avoidable worsening. (3 widespread misconceptions: wrong rfmt, wrong extinction, slow extinction)

IVB2. CMO-R Human examples a. Everyday social interactions. The CMO-R is important in identifying a negative aspect of many everyday interactions that might seem free of deliberate aversiveness. The interactions are usually interpreted as a sequence of SD--->R interactions, with each one being an opportunity for one person to provide some form of rfmt to the other person. But there is a slightly darker side to everyday life. Response to a request for information: You are on campus and stranger asks you where the library is. The appropriate R is give the information or say that you don't know. What evokes your answer? The request. What reinforces your response? The person asking will smile and thank you. Also you will be rfed by the knowledge that you have helped another person.

IVB2. CMO-RHuman examples a. Everyday social interactions (cont'd.) So the request is an SD. But, it also begins a brief period that can be considered a warning stimulus, and if a rsp is not made soon, some form of mild social worsening will occur. The asker may repeat the question, more clearly or loudly, and will think you are strange if you do not respond. You, yourself, would consider your behavior socially inappropriate if you did not respond quickly. Even with no clear threat implied for non-responding, our social history implies some form of worsening for continued inappropriate behavior. So, the request plus the brief following period is in part a CMO-R in evoking the response. It is best considered a mixture of positive and negative parts. But when the question is an inconvenience (e.g. when you are in a rush to get somewhere) the CMO-R is probably the main component.

IVB2.Human examples a. Everyday social interactions (cont'd.) "Thanks" When a person does something for another that is a kindness of some sort, it is customary for the recipient of the kindness to thank the person performing the kindness, who then typically says "You're welcome." What evokes the thanking rsp, and what is its rfmt? Clearly it is evoked by the person's performing the kindness. And the "You're welcome" acknowledgment is the obvious rfmt. So the kindness is an SD in the presence of which a "Thanks" response can receive a "You're welcome." But what if the recipient fails to thank the donor? The performance of the kindness is also a CMO-R that begins a period that functions like a warning stimulus. Failure to thank is inappropriate.

In applied behavior analysis the CMO-R may be an unrecognized component of procedures used for training individuals with defective social repertoires. Learners are typically asked questions or given verbal instructions, and appropriate responses are rfed in some way (an edible, praise, a toy, etc.). Should the questions and instructions be considered primarily SDs evoking behavior because of the availability of the rfers? I think not. What happens if an appropriate response does not occur fairly quickly? Usually a more intense social interaction ensues. The question usually has relatively strong CMO-R characteristics. Although it may not be possible to completely eliminate this negative component, it is important to recognize its existence and to understand its nature and origin. IVB2. CMO-R Human examples b. Academic Demand.

30" tone on shock on 5" tone off shock off tone on shock off R1 R2 R1 = lever press, the avoidance rsp. R2 = chain pull, the escape rsp. IVB2. CMO-R c. Weakening the Avoidance Response Evocative weakening: Leave tone off. But this is only temporary. When tone next comes on R will occur. TrueExtinction of R1: Remove R1 contingency (dimmed out). R1 occurs, tone stays on and shock occurs when it would have if R1 had not occurred. Result: Reduction in R frequency will take place at a usual rate for extinction. Unpairing (erroneously called extinction): Shock does not occur even if the warning stimulus is not terminated. Reduction in R frequency occurs very slowly. (Why)(For another kind of unpairing--shock even when avoidance R occurs--probably has faster effects.)

Early phases of academic demand situation may be CMO-R, evoking tantrums, SIB, aggressive beh, etc. b/c such behavior has been rfed by terminating the early phases and not progressing to the more demanding phases. IVB3. CMO-R Weakening the CMO-R (cont'd.) The effects of the CMO-R in evoking the problem behavior can be weakened by extinction or by unpairing. But if the later phases must occur because of the importance of the repertoire being taught, and assuming they cannot be made less aversive, then extinction of problem behavior is the only practical solution. (Unpairing will lead to no training.) But the demand can usually be made less aversive. Better instruction will result in less failure and more frequent rfmt. The CMO-R will weaken as the final components become less demanding. The negativity of the training situation would not be expected to vanish completely unless there was no better rfmt in the non-training situation. However, as the SD component related to the positive reinforcers in the situation becomes more important as compared with the CMO-R component, problem behavior should be less frequent and less intense.

I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic features (brief history, EO, MO) B. Some important details (pmt, generality, misunderstand) Motivating Operations II. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 1 III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations A. UMOs vs CMOs B. Nine main UMOs for humans C. A complication: Multiple effects IV. Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations: Part 2 V. Conditioned Motivating Operations A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S) B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R) C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T) VI. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis

tone off rfmt off tone ON rfmt off tone ON rfmt ON R1 R2 3 sec R1 = treadle press, R2 = key peck, rfmt = 3" grain available CMO-T: Description & animal example CMO-T: An environmental variable related to the relation between another stimulus and some form of rfmt, and thus establishes the rfng effectiveness of the other stimulus, & evokes all behavior that has produced that stimulus. Examples: UMOs function as CMO-Ts for stimuli that are Srs because of their relation to the relevant SR. Food deprivation is CMO-T for rfer effectiveness of tone, and evokes all Rs that have produced tone (in this case, R1).

tone off rfmt off tone ON rfmt off tone ON rfmt ON R1 R2 3 sec R1 = treadle press, R2 = key peck, rfmt = 3" grain available CMO-T: Another animal example: Observing beh. Onset of tone makes sight of the key effective as rfmt and evokes observing behavior–visual search behavior. Why is tone onset not an SD for looking for the key? What is the rfmt for looking for key? Seeing key. Is the tone onset related to the availability of this rfmt? Can the key be more easily seen when tone is on than when tone is off? No. Tone makes seeing the key more valuable, not more available. As a supposed SD for looking for the key, tone is defective in two ways. (1) An SD is a stimulus in the absence of which the relevant rfer is not available, but the key can be successfully looked for when tone is off. (2) When tone is off, there is no MO making sight of key valuable.

30" 5" R1 tone off shock off tone on shock on tone on shock off R2 R1 = lever press, the avoidance rsp. R2 = chain pull, the escape rsp. CMO-T: 1. Avoidance and All 3 CMOs • Tone onset is CMO-S in evoking chain pull. • Tone onset is CMO-R in evoking lever press. • Tone onset is CMO-T in evoking looking for the lever. CMO-T: 2. A complication: SDs are often also involved. Although tone onset is not an SD but rather a CMO-T for looking for the key, it is an SD for pecking the key. What is the rfmt for pecking the key? Food. Is food rfmt more available when tone is on than when it is not on? Yes.

3. Human CMO-T: Flashlight example The rfing effectiveness of many human Srs is dependent on other stimulus conditions because of a learning history. Thus conditioned rfing effectiveness depends on a context. When the context is not appropriate the S may be available, but not accessed b/c it is not effective as rfmt in that context. A change to an appropriate context will evoke behavior that has been followed by that S. The occurrence of the behavior is not related to the availability of the S, but to its value. Flashlights are available in most home settings, but are not accessed until existent lighting becomes inadequate, as with a power failure. Sudden darkness, as a CMO-T, evokes getting a flashlight. The motivative nature of this relation is not widely appreciated. The sudden darkness is usually interpreted as an SD for looking for a flashlight. But are flashlights more available in the dark? No. But they are more valuable.

3. Human CMO-T: Slotted screw example Consider a workman disassembling a piece of equipment, with an assistant providing tools as they are requested. The workman sees a slotted screw and requests a screwdriver. The sight of the screw evoked the request, the rfmt for which is receiving the tool from the assistant. Prior to a CMO-T analysis the sight of the screw would have been considered an SD for requesting the tool. But the sight of such screws has not been differentially related to the availability of screwdrivers. Workmen's assistants have typically provided requested tools irrespective of the stimulus conditions that evoked the request. Screwdrivers are not more available once one sees slotted screws, but rather more valuable--a CMO-T, not an SD. SDs are involved: The screw is an SD for unscrewing motions; and the request is also dependent upon the presence of the assistant as an SD. But it is a CMO-T for the request.

3. Human CMO-T: The danger stimulus A security guard hears a suspicious sound. He activates his mobile phone which signals another guard, who calls back and asks if help is needed (the Sr for the first guard's response). Is the suspicious sound an SD for contacting the other guard? Only if the rfmt for the rsp is more available in the presence than in the absence of the suspicious sound, which it is not. The sound makes the rsp by the other guard more valuable, not more available, so it is a CMO-T for activating the phone. The CMO-T is not an SD because the absence of the stimulus does not qualify as an S∆. The relevant rfmt is just as available in the supposed S∆ as in the SD; and there is no MO for the rfmt in the S∆ condition--nothing is wanted. The other guard's phone ringing is an SD for his activating his phone and saying "Hello," getting some rsp from a person phoning has not been available from non-sounding phones. (A danger signal is not a CMO-R, because it is rfed by producing another S, not its own removal.)

CMO-T: 4. Weakening the CMO-T Abative weakening: The CMO-T can be temporarily weakened by weakening the MO related to the ultimate outcome of the sequence of behaviors. If the workman is told that the equipment does not have to be disassembled for this job the behavior evoked by the sight of the slotted screw will be weak. Of course the next time a screw has to be removed the request will be as strong as before. Weakening by extinction, if something changes so that requests are no longer honored, e.g. assistants now believe that workmen should get their own tools. By one type of unpairing, if screwdrivers no longer work. Construction practices have changed so that screws are welded as soon as they are inserted. By another type of unpairing, if slotted screws can be unscrewed just as easily by hand as with the screwdriver.

IVC. 5. The CMO-T and language training It is increasingly recognized that mand training is an important part of language programs for individuals with nonfunctional verbal behavior. With such individuals, effective manding does not always arise spontaneously from tact and receptive language training. The learner has to want something, be prompted to make an appropriate request, and receive what was requested. The response then comes under the control of the MO and becomes a part of the individual's vb repertoire as a mand. How can the trainer cause the learner to want something? Rather than causing the learner to want something the trainer can simply wait for an occasion when an MO occurs, as teaching a food mand in the midmorning when it has been some time since breakfast, or an "out" mand when something interesting is happening outside.

UMOs can be manipulated, but this is likely to raise ethical problems (food deprivation, or causing discomfort). 5. The CMO-T and language training (cont'd.) Also, much human manding is for Srs rather than SRs. Any stimulus can be the basis for a mand simply by arranging an environment to be a CMO-T in which that stimulus can function as an Sr. Thus if a pencil mark on a piece of paper is required for an opportunity to play with a favored toy, mands for a pencil and a piece of paper can be taught. It is also an essential aspect of the verbal behavior approach to much current work in the area of autism, for example by Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Pleasant Hill, CA : Behavior Analysts, Inc. This approach is somewhat similar, but more manipulative than Hart and Risley's (1975) procedure called incidental teaching.

6. Practical implications of the CMO-T vs. SD analysis. A CMO-T evokes behavior because of its relation to the value of a consequence; an SD evokes behavior because of its relation to the availability of a consequence. This distinction must be relevant in subtle ways to the effective understanding and manipulation of behavioral variables for a variety of practical purposes. To develop new behavior or to eliminate old behavior by manipulating the value when availability is relevant, or availability when value is relevant will be inadequate or at least less effective than the more precise manipulation. The distinction is an example of a terminological refinement, not an empirical issue. Its value will be seen in the improved theoretical and practical effectiveness of those whose verbal behavior has been affected.

V. General Implications for Applied Behavior Analysis. Behavior analysis makes extensive use of the three-term contingency relation involving stimulus, response, and consequence. However, the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of the consequence in developing control by the stimulus depends on an MO. And the future effectiveness of the stimulus in evoking the response depends on the presence of the same MO in that future condition. In other words, the three-term relation cannot be fully understood, nor most effectively used for practical purposes without a thorough understanding of motivating operations. In principle it should be referred to as a four-term contingency.

That's all, folks. Thanks for your attention. If you would like a copy of the power point slide show, you can download it (wait until next week) from my web site, jackmichael.org or you can email jack.michael@wmich.edu and I will send it as an attachment to a return email. You can also email me any questions you might have about this presentation, or write to 1000 Berkshire Drive, Kalamazoo MI 49006.

Motivating Operations