Motivating Operations
Florida Tech, Spring 2005
Psych 5260, Seminar in Conceptual Issues
March 2 and 3, 2005
Jack Michael, Ph.D.
Psychology Department
Western Michigan University
jack.michael@wmich.edu
phone: (269) 372-3075
fax: (269) 372-3096
Suggestions for the Student
All of the information for this course is available (1) on the
following slides, (2) in the accompanying lectures, and (3) in
these three chapters in Michael, J., (2004). Concepts and
Principles of Behavior Analysis, Revised Edition. Kalamazoo, MI:
Society for the Advancement of Behavior Analysis.
Chapter 1: Basic Principles of Behavior, Parts IVC10 (45-59) and
IVC11 (59-64).
Chapter 7: Establishing Operations, 135-150.
Chapter 8: Implications and Refinements, 151-159.
A detailed outline of the slides is included in your study materials,
and it would be good to have it available as we go through the
different topics.
An Errata page is also included in your study materials. It shows errors in the
first printing of Concepts and Principles, Revised Edition. You should go
through C & P and write in the corrections to avoid some confusions.
2
Timetable
1955 (KU): repertoire based heavily on SHB (re motivation, Chapters 9, 10, 11) and also Wm.
James lectures, and to some extent K& S (from Wike).
1957 (U of H): SHB for grad courses, K&S for an undergrad learning course (2 semesters).
Thoroughly exposed to estab. oper. in Chapter 9 and 10.
1958 or 59: Holland-Skinner disks from Harvard course. Used them for some instruction.
1960 (ASU) Used H-S program in teaching Psych 112--1961 (?) until Keller took over 112 in
1964-65. Deprivation and aversive stimulation as motivational operations.
1960-1967 Gave many talks on behavior modification, rehabilitation, etc. It is not clear that I
made much use of the motivation area, but probably it played a role in some highly general
talks.
1967 (WMU) Taught VB (Psych 260), and statistics, JEAB, Indiv. Org. Res. Methodology
(IORM), and eventually Psych 151. For 151 I used SHB, H-S, various sources. I could not
determine by looking at old course materials when I started using the EO concept in the
undergrad course, or in the VB course when the mand was covered. By 1980 I am pretty sure
it was well developed. Critical was a grad seminar on Skinner where a group of very effective
grad students and I discussed the SE (transitive CEO) at great length. I started using EO as a
general term, including both deprivation and aversive stim (salt ingestion issue), and most
importantly, from my perspective, with respect to learned EOs (sketch of a cat, slotted screw).
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli.
JEAB, 37, 149-155.
Michael, J. (1988). Establishing operations and the mand. TAVB, 6, 3-9.
Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. TBA, 16, 191-206.
Michael, J. (2000). Implications and refinements of the EO concept. JABA, 33, 401-410.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to
3
describe them: Some further refinements. JABA, 36, 407-413.
First a personal historical perspective1
UCLA, 1943, 1946-1955 B.A., M.A., Ph.D. in psychology.
Main interests: Physiological psych, learning theory (Hull2,
Tolman -- not much Skinner), statistics, philosophy of science.
1st academic position, 1955-57, Psych Dept at Kansas Univ.
Intro psych for non majors as a teaching responsibility but not a
major one: Traditional eclectic intro text; typical course
format-- 3 lectures per week, exams every 5 weeks or so.
My approach to lecturing: Keep a little ahead of the class in the
text, supplement text with information from other sources,
mainly from my own library.
Studied Skinner's Science and Human Behavior to provide lecture
material for the upcoming section on learning, and it was
perfect for my lectures in the intro course.3
Section II is the comprehensive basic behavior analysis approach
that I soon adopted and used all my life.4
4
Phase 1: Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human
behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Chapters 4 to 12, Section II, The Analysis of Behavior1
4. Reflexes and conditioned reflexes (respondent relations)
5. Operant behavior (rfmt, extinction conditioned rfers)
6. Shaping and maintaining operant behavior (differential rfmt,
intermittent rfmt--interval, ratio)
7. Operant discrimination (discriminative stimuli--SDs,
discriminative repertoires, attention)
8. The controlling environment (generalization, discrimination)
9. Deprivation and satiation (needs and drives)2
10. Emotion (as a predisposition3, responses that vary together in
emotion, emotional operations)
11. Aversion, avoidance, anxiety (aversive stimuli, conditioned
aversive stimuli, escape, avoidance)
12. Punishment (does it work? how? by-products, alternatives)
5
My slight modifications of the SHB arrangement
1. Unlearned environment-behavior relations
2. Respondent relations (conditioning, extinction1, S-change
decrement, discrimination, and others2)
[Aside on behavior-altering vs function-altering relations,
considered in detail later]
3. Reinforcement: basic relation and three qualifications (RSR delay, stimulus conditions, motivating operations3)
4. Extinction4
5. Punishment: basic relation and three qualifications
6. Schedules of reinforcement
7. Motivating operations (2 defining effects, human UMOs,
multiple effects, CMOs, others5)
8. Discriminative stimulus control (stimulus change
decrement, SD and S∆)
9. Conditioned reinforcement and punishment
10. Escape and avoidance6
6
Phase 1: Science and Human Behavior (cont'd.)
So, motivation is concerned with the operations of deprivation
and satiation; and aversive stimulation.
Deprivation increases and satiation decreases the probability of
behavior that has been reinforced with the relevant reinforcer.1
An increase or decrease in aversive stimulation increases or
decreases the probability of behavior that has terminated
that type of aversive stimulation.
What about the term drive?2
Skinner used it extensively in Beh. of Organisms (Chapters 9
and 10), and also in the William James Lectures (1947)3, but
by SHB (1953) the chapter title was not "Drive", but rather
"Deprivation and Satiation". Drive occurred frequently, but it
was accompanied by much cautionary language.
I avoided the term (without thinking about it), because of its
internal implications. Also I was now uncomfortable with
Hull's theoretical4 approach (despite my dissertation).
7
Excerpt from Skinner's 1947 William James Lectures, from page 31 of Chapter 2,
"Verbal behavior as a scientific subject matter." His use of the drive concept.
. . . "We may begin with the type of vb which involves the fewest variables. In any verbal
community we observe that certain responses are characteristically followed by certain
consequences. Wait is followed by someone's waiting, Shh by silence, and so on. . . .The case is
defined by the fact that the form of the response is related to a particular consequence.
There is a simple non-verbal parallel. Out! has the same ultimate effect as turning the knob
and pushing against the door. The explanation of both behaviors is the same. They are examples of
law-of-effect, or what I should like to call operant conditioning. Each response is acquired and
continues to be maintained in strength because it is frequently followed by an appropriate
consequence. The verbal response may have a slightly different "feel," but this is due to the
special dynamic properties which arise from the mediation of the reinforcing organism. The basic
relation is the same.
The particular consequence which is used to account for the appearance of behavior of this
sort - to use a technical term, the reinforcement for the response - is not the controlling variable.
Reinforcement is merely the operation which establishes control. In changing the strength of such
a response we manipulate any condition which alters what we call the drive. This is true whether
the door is opened with a "twist and push" or with an "out!" We can make either response more
likely to appear by increasing the drive to get outside - as by putting an attractive object beyond
the door. We can reduce the strength of either by reducing the drive - as by introducing some
object which strengthens staying in.
Our control over the verbal response Out!, as in the case of any response showing a similar
relations to a subsequent reinforcement, is thus reduced to our control of the underlying drive.
8
Phase 2: Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950).
Principles of psychology: Chapter 9, Motivation
First read it at in 1955 or 561. K & S2 was written in 1950, but I
read it after I was very familiar with Skinner's 1953 Science
and Human Behavior, and made little use of it at that time.
2nd academic position, 1957-60, University of Houston.
Here I used SHB and Verbal Behavior (available in 1957) for
graduate seminars and informal discussion sessions.3
Also used K & S for two terms as text for an undergrad learning
course. I don't remember much about my dealing with the
motivation chapter; it was certainly assigned and I lectured
and examined over it. I think I simply adopted the expression
"establishing operation" meaning "establishes something as a
reinforcer."4
9
Phase 3: Holland, J. G., & Skinner, B. F. (1961). The
analysis of behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1957-58, while at Houston I obtained the circular disks used at
Harvard in the programmed course. Very interesting! The
format1 not convenient for use in a course without the teaching
machines, but the content covered the essential2 aspects of
Section 2 of SHB, and programmed instruction was a very
exciting new behavioral development
3rd academic position, 1960-67, Arizona State University
Taught undergrad statistics, several grad courses, and by 1962 I
was teaching an intro course for majors, using the HollandSkinner programmed textbook3 (and my own lab manual4).
Fred Keller started teaching that intro course using his PSI5
approach in late 64-early 65, and using K&S as his text, but I
made little or no use of the book once the H-S program came out.
10
Phase 4: Motivation in decline
Although quite important to Skinner (1938, 1953) and to Keller
and Schoenfeld (1950),1 motivation during the 60s and 70s
was hardly mentioned as a significant behavioral concept.
Deprivation was mentioned but played only a small role. Why?
(1) Knowledge of intermittent rfmt schedules2 showed that
behavior is much more sensitive to rfmt frequency and rfmt
schedule than to deprivation.
(2) Wants, needs, drives, etc. were usually explanatory fictions
referring to inner entities inferred from the behavior they
were supposed to explain.
(3) Also with increasing applied work, generalized conditioned
rfmt (praise, points, money) was usually the immediate
consequence for much human behavior, which made
deprivation and aversive stimulation less necessary3.
But ultimately motivational variables could not be ignored
11
without leaving the system incomplete.
4th (and last) academic position: 1967-2003, WMU
Taught undergrad VB course (called "Social Psych"), statistics,
JEAB, Indiv. Org. Res. Methodology, and eventually
(~1970) an intro course for majors, for which I used SHB,
H-S, and various sources.
For my teaching I had to have consistent, coherent, concepts and
principles1. So deprivation/satiation and aversive stimulation
must be dealt with, even though such effects seem less
important than reinforcement frequency.
Deprivation increases and satiation decreases the frequency2 of
behavior that has been reinforced with the relevant reinforcer.
An increase or decrease in aversive stimulation increases or
decreases the (current) frequency of behavior that has
terminated that type of aversive stimulation.
12
Phase 5: Necessity for a general concept
But this was somewhat unsatisfactory.
(1) There are a few operations with similar effects but which
are neither deprivation or aversive stim. (salt ingestion,
blood loss, perspiration; temperature too high/low)?1
(2) Also, I needed a technical term for this area that would
refer to deprivation, aversive stimulation, and any other
variables that have similar effects. Motivation is too broad
in its ordinary usage (including reinforcement). Drive lends
itself too easily to an internal interpretation.
The solution: Sometime during the early or mid 70s it occurred to
me that what these operations did was establish something as
a reinforcer. Let's call them establishing operations.2a, 2b
An unanticipated result of this usage was to emphasize the
reinforcer-establishing (later "value-altering") effect as
separate from the evocative (later "behavior-altering" effect
13
much more than with K & S (1950) or SHB (1953).3
Learned motivation:1 The sketch of a cat
Skinner's example of how to get someone to mand a pencil
was the initial stimulus for the learned EO analysis.
The sketch of a cat: In Verbal Behavior (p. 253) Skinner
explained how one could use basic verbal relations to get a
person to say pencil. To evoke a mand of that form, "we
could make sure that no pencil or writing instrument is
available, then hand our subject a pad of paper appropriate
to pencil sketching, and offer him a handsome reward for a
recognizable picture of a cat."2
How should we classify the offer of money for the sketch in its
evocation of the response pencil?3 An SD? Why not?
The main purpose of the 1982 paper was to provide an analysis of
what I first called an establishing stimulus (SE), and later a
transitive conditioned establishing operation (CEO-T).4
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative5 and
14
motivational functions of stimuli. JEAB, 37, 149-155.
1982-1993: EO terminology was adopted to some extent in the
applied field from the 1982 paper.1 So, a new paper:
Michael, J. (1993) Establishing operations. TBA, 16, 191-206.
(somewhat clearer language, more details re pain as an EO,
two new learned EOs2)
McGill, P.(1999). Establishing operations: Implications for
the assessment, treatment, and prevention of problem
behavior. JABA, 32, 393-418.2
Michael, J. (2000). Implications and refinements of the EO
concept. JABA, 33, 401-410.
Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., & Michael, J. (2000). Current
research on the influence of EOs on behavior in applied
settings. JABA, 33, 411-428.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003).
Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some
further refinements. JABA, 36, 407-413.
15
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
16
This ends the historical introduction to the topic, which
consisted of 14 slides.
Now back to a logical and conceptual rather
than a historical development of motivation.
17
Motivating Operations1
I. Definition and Characteristics
next
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing Motivative from Discriminative Relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
18
I. Definition and Characteristics
A. Basic features
Brief history
a. Skinner, 1938 & 1953
b. K & S, 1950
c. Michael's extension
Figure 1. EO defining
effects named, with food
and pain examples
Figure 2. MO defining
effects
Figure 3. EO and MO
effects compared
B. Important details
1. What about punishment?
2. Direct & Indirect Effects.
3. Not Just Frequency.
4. Misunderstandings.
5. Current vs. Future Effects
a. Evocative/Abative vs.
Function-Altering
b. Antecedent vs.
Consequence
19
A. Basic features: Brief history
a. Skinner, 1938 & 1953: Motivation concerned with
deprivation/satiation and aversive stimulation.
Deprivation/satiation alter the probability of behavior that
has been reinforced with the relevant reinforcer.
Alteration in aversive stimulation alters the probability of
behavior that has reduced such aversive stimulation.
But unsatisfactory: a general term needed for both (drive
no good). Also salt ingestion, blood loss, etc.
b. Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950. Both deprivation and aversive
stimulation are operations that establish a drive. Food
deprivation, for example, establishes food as a reinforcer.
Aversive stimulation establishes its reduction as a reinforcer.
Establishing operation is thus a good general term--implies
the environment rather than an internal state.
20
A. Basic features: Brief history (cont'd.)
c. Michael, 1982. Let us use establishing operation (EO) for
any environmental variable (deprivation, aversive
stimulation, salt ingestion, becoming too warm or too cold,
and also a learned variable) that does these two things:
i. Increases the current reinforcing effectiveness of
some stimulus, object, or event.
ii. Increases the current frequency of (evokes) all
behavior that has obtained that stimulus, object, or
event in the past.
Furthermore let us give each of these effects a name:
21
Fig. 1 Establishing Operations (EOs): 2 Defining Effects
Rfer Establishing or
Abolishing Effect
EOs establish the current reinforcing effectiveness of some
stimulus, object, or event. (And
establish includes the effect in the
opposite direction, abolish.)
Evocative or Abative Effect
EOs evoke any behavior that has been
reinforced by the same stimulus that is
altered in rfing effectiveness by the same
EO. (And evoke includes an effect in the
opposite direction, abate.)
Food deprivation increases and food ingestion decreases the
reinforcing
effectiveness of food.
current frequency of any behavior that
has been reinforced1 by food.
An increase in pain causes an increase, and a
decrease in pain causes a decrease in the
reinforcing effectiveness
of pain reduction.
current frequency of any behavior that
has been rfed by pain reduction.
22
Fig. 2 Motivating Operations (MOs): 2 Defining Effects
Value-Altering Effect
MOs alter the current reinforcing effectiveness of some
stimulus, object, event.
Reinforcer
Establishing
Abolishing
Effect
Effect
Behavior-Altering Effect
MOs alter any behavior that has been
reinforced by the same stimulus, object,
or event that is altered in value by the
same MO.
Evocative
Effect
Abative
Effect
Food deprivation increases and food ingestion decreases the
reinforcing
effectiveness of food.
current frequency of any behavior that
has been rfed by food.
An increase in pain causes an increase, and a
decrease in pain causes a decrease in the
reinforcing effectiveness
of pain reduction.
current frequency of any behavior that
has been rfed by pain reduction.
23
Figure 3: EO and MO comparison
Establishing Operations (EOs): 2 Defining Effects
Rfer Establishing or
Abolishing Effect
EOs establish the current reinforcing effectiveness of some
stimulus, object, or event. (And
establish includes the effect in the
opposite direction, abolish.)
Evocative or Abative Effect
EOs evoke any behavior that has been
reinforced by the same stimulus that is
altered in rfing effectiveness by the same
EO. (And evoke includes an effect in the
opposite direction, abate.)
Motivating Operations (MOs): 2 Defining Effects
Value-Altering Effect
MOs alter the current reinforcing effectiveness of some
stimulus, object, event.
Reinforcer
Establishing
Abolishing
Effect
Effect
Behavior-Altering Effect
MOs alter any behavior that has been
reinforced by the same stimulus, object,
or event that is altered in value by the
same MO.
Evocative
Effect
Abative
Effect
24
Motivating Operations Where are we?
I. Definition and Characteristics
A. Basic features
next
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing Motivative from Discriminative Relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
25
IB. Important details
1. What about MOs and punishment?
2. Direct and Indirect Effects.
3. Not Just Frequency.
4. Common Misunderstandings.
5. Current vs. Future Effects;
Evocative/Abative vs. Function-Altering Effects;
Antecedent vs. Consequence Effects
6. Generality depends on MO as well as stimulus conditions
26
IB. Important Details
1. What about MOs and punishment? Only recently
considered–most of MO theory and knowledge
relates to MOs for rfmt. Some in a later section.
2. Direct and indirect effects1
a. MO alters response frequency directly.
b. MO alters evocative strength of relevant SDs.
c. Also establishing/abolishing effects, and evocative and
abative effects re relevant conditioned reinforcers (but
not for the same response)
3. Not just frequency: magnitude (more or less
forceful R), latency (shorter or longer time from MO
or SD to R), relative frequency (response
occurrences per response opportunities), & others.
27
IB. More Details1
4. Misunderstanding #1: Evocative/abative effect is
secondary to the value-altering effect.
This is the interpretation of altered response frequency as
solely the result of contact with the reinforcer of
altered effectiveness, i.e. follows that contact and
behavior is increased or decreased because of the
smaller or greater strengthening effect of the
reinforcer on subsequent responses.
But not true. Evocative/abative effects can be seen in
extinction responding--that is, without contacting the
reinforcer.
Best thought of as Two Separate Effects.
28
IB. More Details (cont'd.)
But the two effects do often work together. Reinforcing
effectiveness will only be seen in the future, after some
behavior has been reinforced, but this can be immediately
after the MO alteration. Thus ongoing increased reinforcer
effectiveness will combine with an evocative effect.
If behavior is occurring too infrequently: Strengthening the MO
will result in responses being followed by more effective rfer
(rfer estab. effect); and all behavior that has been so rfed will
be occurring at a higher frequency (evocative effect). The
increase cannot be unambiguously interpreted, but in
practice it may make no difference.
If behavior is occurring too frequently: Weakening MO will
result in a weaker evocative effect, and a weaker reinforcer.
29
IB. More Details (still cont'd.)
4. Misunderstanding #2: The cognitive interpretation
This is belief that evocative and abative effects only work
because the individual understands (is able to verbally
describe) the situation and behaves appropriately as a result
of understanding.
Not true. Reinforcement automatically adds the reinforced
behavior to the repertoire that will be evoked or abated by
the relevant MO. The individual does not have to
understand anything in the sense of verbal description.
(*Consider rats.)
There are 2 harmful effects of this belief.
Little effort may made to alter the behavior of non-verbal
persons who seem incapable of such understanding.
Teachers are not prepared for disruptive behavior acquired
by non-verbal persons who have been so reinforced. 30
IB. More Details (finished at last)
5. Current vs Future Effects; Evocative/Abative vs
Function-Altering Effects; Antecedents vs Consequents
Evocative/abative (antecedent) variables with current effects:
Operant repertoire: (MO + SD)----->R relations
Respondent repertoire: US or CS----->UR or CR
Function-altering variables (consequences) with future effects:
Operant consequences: R followed by SR, SP, Sr, Sp;
and R occurs w/o consequence (extinction)
(Respondent pairing/unpairing: CS paired w/ US;
CS occurs w/o US (extinction)
6. Generality depends on MO as well as stim conditions
31
1st. Review: Basic features, important details.
IA. Basic Features.
Brief history (Skinner, K & S, Michael)
EO defining effects with examples
MO defining effects with examples
EO and MO effects compared
IB. Important details.
1. What about punishment?
2. Direct and indirect effects
3. Not just frequency
4. Two misunderstandings
5. Current vs future; evocative/abative vs function-altering;
antecedents vs consequents
6. Generality depends on MO as well as stim conditions
32
Motivating Operations Where are we?
I. Definition and Characteristics
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing Motivative from Discriminative Relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
next
33
II. A Critical Distinction: Motivative vs.
Discriminative Relations; MO vs. SD
A. The General Contrast
Both MOs and SDs are learned, operant, antecedent,
evocative/abative, not function-altering relations.
SDs evoke (S∆s abate) because of differential past
availability of a reinforcer.
MOs evoke or abate because of the differential current
effectiveness of a reinforcer
But more is needed on differential availability.
34
B. Differential Availability Refined
An SD (discriminative stimulus) is a type of stimulus that
evokes a type of response. But so does the respondent
CS (conditioned stimulus).
An SD is a type of S that evokes a type of R because that R
has been reinforced in that S. But it will not have strong
control unless it occurs without rfmt. in the absence of
the S (in the S∆ condition).1
An SD evokes its R because it has been reinforced in the SD
and has occurred w/o rfmt. in S∆.
But now another assumption must be made explicit.
35
C. MO in S∆ condition
An SD evokes its R because it has been reinforced in the SD
and has occurred w/o rfmt. in S∆. But, occurring w/o
rfmt in S∆ would be behaviorally irrelevant unless the
unavailable reinforcement would have been effective as
reinforcement if it been obtained.
This means that the relevant MO for the rfmt in SD must also
be in effect during S∆.1
In everyday* language: For development of an SD---R
relation, an organism must have wanted something in the
SD, R occurred, and it was reinforced; and also must
have wanted it in the S∆, R occurred, and was not
reinforced.
(*I'll admit that this is not exactly everyday language.)
36
D. Food example: Could food deprivation (or relevant
internal stimuli1) qualify as an SD, and absence of
deprivation as an S∆, for a food reinforced response?
Two SD requirements: (1) R must have been rfed with food in
SD and (2) occurred w/o food rfmt in S∆, and the relevant
MO (food deprivation) must have been in effect during S∆.
(1) Food deprivation sort of 2 meets the requirement: Food
available and R rfed w/ food in the presence of deprivation.
(2) R may have occurred w/o food rfmt in S∆, but S∆ is specified
as the absence of food deprivation (or of related internal
stimuli), so MO is clearly absent. Doesn't qualify!
The absence of food deprivation does not qualify as an S∆ but
food deprivation clearly qualifies as an MO.
Everyday language: (1) Food may have been wanted in the SD
condition, and obtained. (2) But what was wanted in the S∆
37
condition that was not obtained? Nothing.
E. Pain example: Could pain qualify as SD, and pain
absence as S∆, for an R rfed by pain reduction?
Two SD requirements: (1) R was rfed with pain reduction in SD
(painful S present) and (2) occurred w/o pain reduction rfmt.
in S∆ (when painful S was absent), and the relevant MO
(painful S) must have been in effect during S∆.
(1) Pain sort of meets the first requirement.1 Pain reduction
may have been available and may have typically followed
R in the presence of pain.
(2) R may have occurred w/o being followed by pain reduction in
S∆ (when pain was not present), but the relevant MO (painful
S) was specified as not present. Pain absence clearly fails to
qualify as an S∆, so pain no good as SD.
Pain does not qualify as an SD, but clearly qualifies as an MO.
Everyday language: (1) Pain reduction was wanted in SD and
obtained. (2) What was wanted in S∆ condition.2 Nothing.
38
2nd. Review
II. Motivative vs. discriminative relations: MO vs. SD
A. The general contrast.
B. Differential availability refined.
C. Another assumption: MO in S∆.
D. Example: Food deprivation as SD? Why not?
E. Example: Pain as SD? Why not?
39
Motivating Operations Where are we?
I. Definition and characteristics
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing motivative from discriminative relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
next
A. UMOs vs. CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
40
IIIA. UMOs vs. CMOs
UMOs are events, operations, or stimulus conditions with
unlearned value-altering effects.
Conditioned motivating operations (CMOs) are MOs with
learned value-altering effects.
The distinction depends solely on the value-altering effect; an
MO's behavior-altering (evocative/abative) effect is always
learned.
UMO: Humans are born with the capacity to be reinforced by
food when food deprived (reinforcer-establishing effect), but
the behavior that gets food has to be learned.
CMO: The capacity to be reinforced by having a key, when we
have to open a locked door (reinforcer-establishing effect)
depends on our history with doors and keys. And we also have
to learn behavior that obtains keys (evocative effect).
41
IIIB. Nine main human UMOs1
1. Five deprivation and satiation UMOs: food,
water, sleep, activity, and oxygen2.
2. UMOs related to sex.
3. Two UMOs related to uncomfortable
temperatures: being too cold or too warm.
4. A UMO consisting of painful stimulation
increase.3
42
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.
43
IIIB2a. UMOs related to sex
For many mammals, time passage and environmental conditions
related to successful reproduction (e.g. ambient light
conditions, average daily 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 making contact with a female a rfer for the male and
evoking behavior that has produced such contact.
These changes may also evoke behaviors by the female (a
sexually receptive posture) that function as UMOs for sexual
behavior by the male.
There is also often a deprivation effect that may also function as a
UMO for both genders.
44
IIIB2b. The sex UMO in humans
In the human, learning plays such a strong role in the
determination of sexual behavior that the role of unlearned
environment-behavior relations has been difficult to determine.
The effect of hormonal changes in the female on the female's
behavior is unclear; and similarly for the role of chemical
attractants in changing the male's behavior.
Other things being equal, both male and female seem to be
affected by the passage of time since last sexual activity
(deprivation) functioning as a UMO with establishing and
evocative effects, and sexual orgasm functioning as a UMO
with abolishing and abative effects.
In addition, tactile stimulation of erogenous regions of the body
seems to function as a UMO making further similar stimulation
even more effective as rfmt and evoking any behavior that has
achieved such further stimulation.
45
IIIB3a. Temperature UMOs, Too Cold
Becoming too cold, reinforcer establishing effect: Increases
effectiveness of an increase in temperature as a reinforcer.
Evocative effect: Increases the current frequency of all behavior
that has increased warmth.
Return to normal temperature1, reinforcer abolishing effect:
Decreases2 effectiveness of becoming warmer as a reinforcer.
Abative effect: Decreases2 current frequency of all behavior that
has increased warmth.
46
IIIB3b. Temperature UMOs, Too Warm
Becoming too warm, reinforcer establishing effect: Increases
effectiveness of a decrease in temperature as a reinforcer.
Evocative effect: Increases the current frequency of all behavior
that has decreased warmth.
Return to normal temperature1, reinforcer abolishing effect:
Decreases effectiveness of becoming cooler as a reinforcer.
Abative effect: Decreases current frequency of all behavior that
has decreased warmth.
47
IIIB4a. Painful Stimulation UMO
Reinforcer Establishing Effect: An increase in pain increases
the current reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction.1
Evocative Effect: An increase in pain increases current
frequency of all types of behavior that have been
reinforced by pain reduction.1
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 an appropriate conceptual model for motivation
by any form of worsening.2
48
IIIB4b. More on pain as a UMO
Skinner’s emotional predisposition refers to an operant1 aspect of
emotion, as a form of MO.2
For anger, the cause is any worsening in the presence of another
organism—pain, interference with rfed behavior, etc.
For some organisms, this seems to function as a UMO making
signs of damage or discomfort3 by the other organism function
as rfmt, and evoking behavior that has been so rfed.
Whether such effects are related to UMOs in humans is presently
unclear.
The similarity of emotional and motivational functional relations
was well developed by Skinner in his 1938 book, The Behavior
of Organisms. The concept of an emotional predisposition (and
a more extensive analysis of emotion) is in Science and Human
Behavior, 1953, pp. 162--170.
49
IIIB. Practice Exercise #1: UMO Effects
Provide each of the following:
1. Evocative effect of sleep deprivation.
2. Reinforcer-abolishing effect of water ingestion.
3. Abative effect of pain decrease. (Be careful.)
4. Reinforcer-establishing effect of becoming too cold.
5. Abative effect of pain increase. (trick question)
6. Rfer-abolishing effect of engaging in much activity.
7. Evocative effect of sex deprivation.
8. Rfer-abolishing effect of a return to normal temperature
after having been too warm. (What has been rfing?)
9. Evocative effect of pain increase. (Be careful.)
10. Rfer-establishing effect of pain increase. (Be careful.)
50
IIIB. Answers for Exercise #1: UMO Effects
1. Increased current frequency of all behavior that has
facilitated going to sleep.
2. Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of water.
3. Decreased current frequency of all behavior that has been
rfed by pain decrease (not "by pain").
4. Increased reinforcing effectiveness of temperature increase.
5. Pain increase does not have an abative effect.
6. Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of activity.
7. Increased current frequency of all behavior that has led to
sexual stimulation.
8. Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of becoming cooler.
9. Increased current freq of all behavior that has reduced pain.
10. Increased reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction.
51
Motivating Operations Where are we now?
I. Definition and characteristics
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing motivative from discriminative relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs. CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
next
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
52
IIIC. Weakening the Effects of UMOs
For practical reasons it may be necessary to weaken some
UMO effects.
Permanent weakening of UMO's unlearned rferestablishing effect is not possible. Pain increase will
always make pain reduction more effective as rfmt.
Temporary weakening by rfer-abolishing and abative
variables is possible. Food stealing can be temporarily
abated by inducing food ingestion, but when deprivation
recurs, the behavior will come back.
Evocative effects depend on a history of rfmt, and can be
reversed by extinction procedure–let the evoked R occur
without rfmt (not possible in practice if control of rfer is
not possible), and abative effects of punishment history can
be reversed by recovery from pmt procedure–R occurs
without the punishment.
53
IIID. UMOs for Punishment
An environmental variable that (1) alters the punishing
effectiveness (up or down) of a stimulus, object, or event, and (2)
alters the current frequency (up or down) of all behavior that has
been so punished is an MO for punishment; and if the first effect
does not depend on a learning history, then it is a UMO.
1. Reinforcer-establishing effects
UMOs: Pain increase/decrease will always increase/decrease
the effectiveness of pain reduction as a rfer. Also true for
other uncond. pners (some sounds, odors, tastes, etc).
MOs for conditioned punishers. Most punishers for humans
are conditioned, not unconditioned punishers. Two kinds:
a. S paired with an unconditioned pner (SP), then the UMO
is the UMO for that unconditioned pner.
b. Historical relation to reduced availability of rfers, then
UMO is the UMO for those rfers. (cont'd on next slide)
54
1. Reinforcer-establishing effects (cont'd.)
Examples: Removing food as pmt (or changing to an S related to
less food) will only punish if food is a reinforcer, so the MO for
food removal as pmt is food deprivation.1
Social disapproval as a punisher (frown, head shake, "bad!") may
work because of being paired with SP like painful stimulation, so
MO would be the MO for the relevant SP.
More often social disapproval works because some of the rfers
provided by the disapprover have been withheld when
disapproval stimuli have occurred. MO would be the MOs for
those reinforcers.
Time-out as punishment is similar. The MOs are the MOs for
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
response cost procedure occurs. (continued on next slide) 55
2. Abative effects of MO for pmt: Quite complex.
An increase in an MO for pmt would abate (decrease the current frequency of) all behavior
that had been punished with that type of punisher.
To observe this effect, however, the punished behavior must be occurring so that a
decrease can be observed. This depends on the current strength of the MO for the
reinforcers for the punished behavior. This means that the observation of an MO
abative effect for punishment requires the MO evocative effect of the rfmt for the
behavior that was punished, otherwise there would be no behavior to punish.
Example for time-out punishment: Assume a time-out procedure was used to punish
behavior that was disruptive to a therapy situation. Problems:
Only if MOs for the rfers available in the situation had been in effect would the
time-out have functioned as punishment.
Then, only if those MOs were in effect would one expect to see the abative effect of the
previous punishment procedure on the disruptive behavior.
But only if the MO for the disruptive behavior were in effect would there be any disruptive
behavior to be abated.
These issues have not been much considered in behavior analysis up to now. But you
should be aware of the complications. They will be there.
56
3rd. Review
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs.
1. Weakening reinforcer establishing effects.
Permanent (not possible).
Temporary (evocative weakening).
2. Weakening evocative effects.
D. MOs for punishment.
Definition.
1. Rfer establishing effects.
Pain and other UMOs.
MOs for conditioned reinforcers.
Examples (social disapproval, time out, response
cost).
2. Abative effects (considerable complexity).
57
Motivating Operations Where are we now?
I. Definition and characteristics
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing motivative from discriminative relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs. CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
next
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
58
E. Multiple effects: Many environmental events have
more than one behavioral effect.
1. SD and Sr in a simple operant chain
2. MO evocative/abative effects vs SR/SP function-altering
effects
3. Practical implications
4. Terminological note: Aversive stimuli
59
1. SD and Sr in a simple operant chain
Food-deprived pigeon presses a treadle (R1) protruding from the
chamber wall, which turns on an auditory tone stimulus. With the
tone on, the pigeon pecks a disk on the wall (R2), which delivers
3 sec exposure to a grain hopper where the pigeon can eat the
grain.
tone off
rfmt off
R1
tone ON
rfmt off
R2
tone ON
rfmt ON
3 sec
R1 = treadle press, R2 = key peck, rfmt = 3" grain available
Tone onset is SD for key peck, and Sr for treadle push.
60
pecking
key
Pigeon Operant Chamber
key lights
aperture light
food aperture
key lights
grain hopper down
treadle
food aperture
Rfmt = aperture light on, grain hopper up
to the bottom of the food aperture. (Pigeon
sticks its head into the aperture and pecks
at the grain.) After 3 sec, light goes off and
hopper goes back down (where grain can't
61
be reached).
pecking
key
Pigeon Operant Chamber
key lights
aperture light
food aperture
key lights
grain hopper up
treadle
food aperture
Rfmt = aperture light on, grain hopper up
to the bottom of the food aperture. (Pigeon
sticks its head into the aperture and pecks
at the grain.) After 3 sec, light goes off and
hopper goes back down (where grain can't
be reached).
62
pecking
key
Pigeon Operant Chamber
key lights
aperture light
food aperture
key lights
grain hopper down
treadle
food aperture
Rfmt = aperture light on, grain hopper up
to the bottom of the food aperture. (Pigeon
sticks its head into the aperture and pecks
at the grain.) After 3 sec, light goes off and
hopper goes back down (where grain can't
63
be reached).
1. SD and Sr in a simple operant chain
a) Evocative/abative (antecedent) variables with current
effects:
I. Operant repertoire: (MO + SD)----->R relations
II. Respondent repertoire: CS----->CR
b) Function-altering (consequence) variables with future
effects:
I. Operant consequences: R followed by SR, SP, Sr, Sp;
R occurs without consequence
II. (Respondent pairing/unpairing: CS paired w/ US;
CS without US)
(Above is from the earlier section IB5, slide 31.)
64
2. MO evocative/abative & SR/SP function-altering
effects.
Pain increase has an MO evocative effect (increase in the
current frequency of (evokes) all behavior reinforced by
pain reduction).
Pain increase also functions as SP to cause a decrease in the
future frequency of the particular type of behavior that
immediately preceded that instance of pain increase.
Food ingestion has an MO abative effect (decrease in the
current frequency of (abates) all food rfed behavior).
Food ingestion also functions as SR to cause an increase in
the future frequency of the particular type of behavior
that immediately preceded that instance of food
ingestion, operant conditioning.
65
2. MO evocative/abative & SR/SP function-altering
effects: Direction of the effects
Becoming too cold or too warm is similar to pain increase in
producing increases in current frequency and decreases in
future frequency. However the evocative effects of most of
the deprivation MOs are too slow acting to function as
effective consequences. Abative effects are all quick acting
and the relevant variables will also function as reinforcers.
Note that SD and Sr effects are in the same direction–both are
increases (not the same behavior). MO and related SR/SP
effects are typically in opposite directions, thus the MO
decreased the current frequency of all food rfed behavior
(abated it); the SR caused an increase in future frequency
(but not in the same behaviors).
66
3. Practice Exercise
For each of the following, name the effect (evocative, abative,
reinforcer, punisher) and describe it using the language of the
preceding slide. I will give the first two.
1. The function-altering effect of pain decrease. (Answer:
Reinforcer: Increases the future frequency of what ever
behavior preceded that instance of pain reduction.)
2. The MO effect of returning to a comfortable temperature after
having been too warm. (Answer: Abative: Decrease in all the
behavior that has caused a decrease in temperature.)
3. MO effect of becoming too cold.
4. Function-altering effect of becoming too cold.
5. MO effect of water ingestion.
6. Function-altering effect of being able to sleep after
sleep deprivation. (More on the next slide.)
67
3. More Practice
7.
MO effect of sexual orgasm.
8.
Function-altering effect of suddenly not being able to
breathe.
9.
Function-altering effect of return to a comfortable
temperature after having been too cold.
10.
Function altering effect of sexual orgasm.
11.
MO effect of pain decrease.
12.
MO effect of activity deprivation.
13.
Function-altering effect of engaging in activity after
activity deprivation.
14.
MO effect of becoming too cold.
15.
MO effect of oxygen deprivation.
68
4. Practical Implications.
Many behavioral interventions are chosen because of their MO
evocative or abative effects, or because of their
reinforcement or punishment effects.
Any of these operations will have related operations in the
opposite direction. These effects could be counter-productive
and should be understood and prepared for.
MO weakening = reinforcement: MO weakened to decrease some
undesirable behavior, (weaker SR for ongoing behavior and
weaker evocative effect): food satiation to reduce food
stealing, attention satiation to reduce disruptive behavior
relevant to attention as a reinforcer. But some behavior will be
reinforced by the satiation operation. Maybe not a problem,
but could be. (continued on next slide)
69
4. Practical Implications (cont'd.)
MO strengthening = punishment: MO strengthened to increase
some desirable behavior (stronger SR for ongoing behavior
plus stronger evocative effect): food deprivation to enhance
effectiveness of food as reinforcer; attention deprivation, music
deprivation, toy deprivation, etc. to increase effectiveness of
those items as reinforcers. But, some behavior will be
punished by the operation unless deprivation onset is very
slow. And even with slow build-up deprivation effects, if they
have been systematically related to a stimulus condition, then
the presentation of that stimulus condition will function as
punishment.
70
4. Practical Implications (cont'd.)
c) Reinforcement = MO weakening: Food, attention, toys, etc.
used a reinforcers to develop new behavior. But providing
these reinforcers 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,
as with pigeons on 24-hour food deprivation being reinforced
with 3 seconds exposure to grain. However it is not clear what
"small" means in terms of the kinds of reinforcers mentioned
above.
71
4. Practical Implications (cont'd.)
d) Punishment = MO strengthening: Considering that most
punishers used deliberately to weaken human behavior are
stimulus conditions that have been related to a lower
availability of various kinds of reinforcement, such a
punishment operation will be like deprivation. It will result in a
stronger Sr for ongoing behavior plus a stronger current
frequency (stronger evocation). With 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.
72
5. Terminological Note: Aversive and appetitive stimuli.
Some environmental events have all three of the following
effects:
a) MO evocative effects.
b) Punishment function-altering effects.
c) Certain respondent evocative effects: heart rate increase,
adrenal secretion, peripheral vasodilation, galvanic skin
response, and so on, often called the activation syndrome).
(Continued on the next slide.)
73
5. Aversive and appetitive stimuli (cont'd.)
Such events are often referred to as aversive stimuli, where the
specific behavioral function [MO, SP or Sp, and US
(unconditioned stimulus)] is not specified. This type of
omnibus term is of problematic value. In many cases it
seems to be little more than a technical translation of
mentalisms like "an unpleasant stimulus", or "I don't like it."
It can be avoided in favor of the more specific terms (MO,
SP or Sp or US) if possible.
Appetitive stimuli has sometimes been used for events with (a)
MO abative effects,(b) reinforcing function-altering effects,
and (c) respondent evocative effects characteristic of
happiness, affection etc. But like aversive stimulus it is too
unspecific, and happily is not much used in behavior analysis.
74
4th. Review
E. Multiple effects
1. SD and S∆ in a simple operant chain
evocative/abative effects
function-altering effects
2. MO evocative/abative effects & SR/SP functionaltering effects.
3. Practice exercises
4. Practical implications
a. MO weakening = reinforcement
b. MO strengthening = punishment
c. Reinforcement = MO weakening
d. Punishment = MO strengthening
5. Terminological Note: Aversive stimuli
75
Motivating Operations Where are we now?
I. Definition and characteristics
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing motivative from discriminative relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs. CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
(Review of the UMO-CMO distinction)
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
next
76
Unconditioned vs. Conditioned MOs
UMOs are events, operations, or stimulus conditions with
unlearned reinforcer-establishing effects.
Conditioned motivating operations (CMOs) are MOs with
learned reinforcer-motivating effects.
The distinction depends solely upon reinforcer-establishing effect;
an MO's evocative/abative effect is always learned.
Humans are born with the capacity to be reinforced by food when
food deprived (reinforcer-estab. effect), but the behavior that gets
food has to be learned.
The capacity to be reinforced by having a key, when we have to
open a locked door (reinforcer-estab. effect) depends on our
history with doors and keys. And we also have to learn how to
obtain the key (evocative effect).
(Same as slide 41.)
77
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations:
Three kinds.
Variables that alter the reinforcing effectiveness (value) of
other stimuli, objects, and events but only as a result
of a learning history can be called Conditioned
Motivating Operations, CMOs.
There seem to be three kinds of CMOs:
A. Surrogate: CMO-S
B. Reflexive: CMO-R
C. Transitive: CMO-T
78
IVA. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
1. Description
a. Pairing: The pairing of stimuli develops the respondent
CS, and the operant Sr, and Sp, and possibly the SD.
Maybe also an MO, by pairing with another MO.
Such a CMO will be called a surrogate CMO, a CMO-S.
It would have the same reinforcer-establishing effect and
the same evocative effect as that of the MO it had
been paired with.
Example: A stimulus paired with the UMO of being too
cold might 1) increase the effectiveness of warmth as
a reinforcer, and 2) evoke behavior that had been so
reinforced more than needed for the actual
temperature.
b. Evidence for such a CMO is not strong. Also it would not
have good survival value, still evolution does not
always work perfectly.
79
IVA1. CMO-S (cont'd.)
c. Emotional MOs: With sexual motivation, MOs for
aggressive behavior, and the other emotional MOs,
the issue has not been addressed in terms specific to
the CMO, because its distinction from CS, Sr, and Sp
has not been previously emphasized. The surrogate
CMO is only just beginning to be considered within
applied behavior analysis (see McGill, 1999, p.396),
but its effects could be quite prevalent.
d. Practical importance: From a practical perspective, it
may be helpful to consider the possibility of this type
of CMO when trying to understand the origin of
some puzzling or especially irrational behavior.
2. Weakening the effects of the CMO-S: Any relation developed
by pairing can be weakened by the two forms of unpairing1.
The stimulus that had been paired with being too cold would
weaken if it occurred repeatedly in normal temperature, or if
one was too cold as often in the absence as in the presence of
80
the stimulus.
Motivating Operations Where are we now?
I. Definition and characteristics
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing motivative from discriminative relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs. CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
(Review of the UMO-CMO distinction)
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
next
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
81
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
IVB. Reflexive CMO
1. Description
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Escape and avoidance
Escape extinction
Avoidance: CMO-R defined
Avoidance extinction
Avoidance misconceptions
2. Human Examples:
a) Ordinary social interactions
b) Academic demand situation
82
IVB1. CMO-R Description: a. Escape-Avoidance
The warning stimulus in an avoidance procedure.
Animal lab escape-avoidance as a box diagram.
tone off
shock off
30"
R1
tone on
shock off
tone on
shock on
5"
R2
R1 = lever press, the
avoidance rsp.
R2 = chain pull, the
escape rsp.
Escape: What evokes R2? The shock onset. What is rfer
for R2? Shock termination. How should the evocative
relation be named? Is shock onset an SD for R2? No,
because S∆ condition is defective–no MO for rfmt
consisting of shock termination when shock is not on.
(What is wanted? Nothing.) Shock is a UMO (recall
earlier section on MO vs. SD, and pain as UMO.
83
IVB1. CMO-R b. Escape Extinction
Animal lab escape-avoidance procedure as a diagram.
tone off
shock off
30"
R1
tone on
shock off
tone on
shock on
5"
R2
R1 = lever press, the
avoidance rsp.
R2 = chain pull, the
escape rsp.
How can R2 be reduced or prevented? What would
extinction of R2 consist of? Extinction = R occurs w/o SR.
Remove R2 contingency (shown dimmed) from the
diagram–not an actual lab procedure. In general, to
extinguish escape behavior the rsp must not escape the later
worsening.
How else to prevent R2? Omit shock, but this is only 84
temporary–evocative, not function-altering.
IVB1. CMO-R c. Avoidance & Definition
tone off
shock off
30"
R1
tone on
shock off
tone on
shock on
5"
R2
R1 = lever press, the
avoidance rsp.
R2 = chain pull, the
escape rsp.
What evokes R1? Onset of the warning stimulus (tone). What
reinforces R1? Avoiding the shock? No, terminating the tone.
How should the evocative relation be named? Is tone onset an
SD for R1? No, because the S∆ condition is defective–no MO
for rfmt consisting of tone termination when tone is not on.
(What is wanted? Nothing.) Tone is a CMO-R. (Why not a
UMO?)
CMO-R: Any stimulus that has systematically preceded the
85
onset of any avoidable worsening.
IVB1. CMO-R d. Avoidance Extinction
tone off
shock off
30"
R1
tone on
shock off
R1 = lever press, the avoidance rsp.
5"
tone on
shock on
R2
R2 = chain pull,
the escape rsp.
How can R1 be weakened or prevented?
Evocative weakening: Leave tone off. But only
temporary. When tone next comes on R will occur.
Function-altering weakening: True Extinction: 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.
86
IVB1. CMO-R e. Avoidance Misconceptions
tone off
shock off
30"
R1
tone on
shock off
5"
omitting
shock
R1 = lever press, the avoidance rsp.
Widespread misconceptions about avoidance:
1st. Misconception: Rfmt for R1 is not getting the shock.
Wrong: Too long-range and a nonevent. Rfmt for R is
termination of the warning S.
2nd. Misconception: To extinguish R1, when R fails to occur
omit shock and return to the beginning. Wrong: Leave
warning S on when R occurs and give shock when it is due.
This error is based on the previous one. Omitting shock will
lead to reduction of R1 frequency, but should not be called
87
extinction. This procedure is shown on the next slide.
IVB1. CMO-R e. Misconceptions (cont'd.)
tone off
shock off
30"
R1
tone on
shock off
5"
omitting
shock
R1 = lever press, the avoidance rsp.
Widespread misconceptions about avoidance:
3rd. Misconception: Avoidance behavior extinguishes very
slowly. Based on erroneous definition of extinction; also on
the notion that organism has to find out that the shock is gone
and the avoidance R prevents this discovery; also on research
results where the shock was omitted, and the behavior
decreased very slowly. Why does this work? Tone-off is
better than tone-on, but only because shock is closer once
tone comes on. When shock is omitted tone-on loses is
aversiveness, so (tone-on--->tone-off) loses its reinforcing
value–but only very gradually.
88
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.
i. 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.
89
IVB2. CMO-R Human 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.
90
IVB2. Human examples
a. Everyday social interactions (cont'd.)
ii."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.
91
IVB2. CMO-R Human examples b. Academic Demand.
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.
92
IVB3. CMO-R Weakening the CMO-R
Evocative and temporary weakening will occur if the warning
stimulus does not occur. Function-altering weakening will
result from extinction (R does not terminate the warning
stimulus) and from unpairing (ultimate worsening does not
occur even if the warning stimulus is not terminated, or
occurs even when the warning stimulus is terminated).
The analysis of weakening the CMO-R involved in everyday
social interactions becomes more complex than seems
appropriate for this type of presentation. It is possibly useful
to suggest that the larger the CMO-R vs. the SD component,
the "meaner" the culture.
Early phases of an academic demand situation may evoke
tantrums, self-injury, aggressive behavior, etc. This behavior
may have been rfed by terminating the early phases and not
progressing to the more demanding phases.
93
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.
If 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 often be made less aversive. Better instruction
will result in less failure and more frequent positive 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 the rfers in the nontraining situation did not compete with what was available in the
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.
94
5th. Review
Review of the UMO - CMO difference.
A. Surrogate CMO
a) Description in terms of pairing
b) Example
B. Reflexive CMO
1. Avoidance and escape
a) Animal lab procedure
b) Evocation and rfmt of the escape and the avoidance Rs
c) Extinction of escape and of avoidance Rs
d) Misconceptions (rfmt, true extinction vs. unpairing)
2. Human examples
a) Everyday social interactions
b) Academic demand
3. Weakening the effects of the CMO-R (everyday social
95
interactions, academic demand)
Motivating Operations Where are we now?
I. Definition and characteristics
A. Basic features
B. Important details
II. Distinguishing motivative from discriminative relations
III. Unconditioned Motivating Operations
A. UMOs vs. CMOs
B. Nine main UMOs for humans
C. Weakening the effects of UMOs
D. UMOs for punishment
E. A complication: Multiple effects
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
(Review of the UMO-CMO distinction)
A. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R)
C. Transitive CMO (CMO-T)
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior Analysis
next
96
IVC. Transitive CMO, CMO-T
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Definition and animal examples.
Human CMO-T Examples
Weakening the Effects of the CMO-T
Importance for Language Training
Practical implications of CMO-T in general
97
CMO-T: 1. Definition & animal example
CMO-T: An environmental variable related to the relation
between another stimulus and some form of rfmt, and thus
establishes the reinforcing 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.
tone off
rfmt off
R1
tone ON
rfmt off
R2
tone ON
rfmt ON
3 sec
R1 = treadle press, R2 = key peck, rfmt = 3" grain available
Food deprivation is CMO-T for rfer effectiveness of tone, and
evokes all Rs that have produced tone (in this case, R1).
98
CMO-T: 1. Another animal example
tone off
rfmt off
R1
tone ON
rfmt off
R2
tone ON
rfmt ON
3 sec
R1 = treadle press, R2 = key peck, rfmt = 3" grain available
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 key more valuable, not more available. As a
suppose SD for looking for 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
99
sight of key valuable.
CMO-T: 1. Avoidance and All 3 CMOs
tone off
shock off
30"
R1
tone on
shock off
tone on
shock on
5"
R2
R1 = lever press, the
avoidance rsp.
R2 = chain pull, the
escape rsp.
1. Tone onset is CMO-S in evoking chain pull.
2. Tone onset is CMO-R in evoking lever press.
3. Tone onset is CMO-T in evoking looking for the lever.
CMO-T: 2. A complication: SDs may also be 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
100
than when it is not on? Yes.
3. Human CMO-T: a. 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 because it is not effective 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. They are more
valuable.
101
3. Human CMO-T: b. 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.
Prior to the CMO-T analysis the sight of the screw would have
been considered an SD for requesting the tool. But the sight
of such screws have 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.
The sight of the screw does not make screwdrivers more
available, 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
102
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
103
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.
Function-altering weakening by extinction: 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 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.
104
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 repertoires.
With such individuals, manding seldom arises spontaneously
from tact and receptive language training.
The learner has to want something, make an appropriate request,
and receive what was requested, and thus the rsp comes
under control by the MO and becomes a part of the
individual's verbal repertoire as a mand.
The occurrence of UMOs can be taken advantage of to teach
mands, but there are two problems.
Manipulating UMOs will usually raise ethical problems.
Much of the human mand repertoire is for conditioned
rather than unconditioned reinforcers.
The CMO-T can be a way to make a learner want anything that
105
can be a means to another end.
5. The CMO-T and language training (cont'd.)
Any stimulus, object or event can be the basis for a mand simply
by arranging an environment 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.
This approach is somewhat similar to Hart and Risley's (1975)
procedure called incidental teaching.
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.
106
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.
107
6th. Review
C. Transitive CMO
1. Definition and animal examples
2. A complication: SDs are also involved
3. Human CMO-T examples
a) Flashlight
b) Slotted screw
c) Danger stimulus
4. Weakening the effects of the CMO-T
5. Importance for language training
6. Practical implications of the CMO-T vs. SD analysis.
108
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.
109
The slide show has ended.
110
111