Unit 3: Motivation

1. Unit 3: Motivation • Another schizophrenic unit • Motivation from a behavioral perspective: The motivating operation (MO) • Tonight • Motivation from a traditional I/O perspective • Monday • Exam (35 pts) a week from tonight • No exercise this week • Immediately after exam, look at the exercise for U4 so you can get started

2. The MO: Introduction to unit • MO material for the unit • Article by Dickinson based on a recent chapter written by Jack Michael (2007, Cooper, Heron, & Heward) • Article by Olson, Laraway, & Austin about EOs/MOs in OBM • Motivating Operations = Establishing Operations • Concept of the EO was introduced by Michael around 1980 • About 4 years ago, based on an article by Laraway, Snycerski, Poling, & Michael, different terminology was introduced • Article by Olson et al. was published before change

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

4. Some basics • In common sense terms, behavior is a function of: • Knowledge and motivation: a person must “know how” and “want to” • In traditional psychology, “wanting to do something” has been defined and discussed as motivation • Skinner, early, talked about motivation in terms of three main factors: • Satiation, deprivation, and termination of aversive stimulation

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

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

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

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

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

10. SO1: Two reasons for success in applied settings, despite ignoring MOs • Often behavioral problems are due to problems with consequences: insufficient reinforcement or punishment Most OBM problems can be solved by altering antecedents and consequences • Most reinforcers in applied settings, particularly OBM settings consist of generalized conditioned reinforcers. Typically generalized Srs are effective at any time because they have been paired with so many other reinforcers Praise, money, signs of success, “funny money” tokens, etc.

11. Money as an example In our society, money is often paired with food when we are food deprived, water when we are water deprived, relief from pain when we are in pain - Therefore, money will function as a reinforcer whenever a person is food deprived, water deprived, in pain, or some combination of them. Because generalized Srs tend to be paired with so many other reinforcers when those reinforcers are deprived, they will be reinforcing almost at any time - because one or more of the relevant MOs are present. (same for praise)

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

13. SO 2: Examples of the cojoint effects of MOsValue Altering and Behavior Altering Effects Examples of MOs that increase the reinforcing value of a consequence and evoke behaviors: • Food deprivation (1) increases the reinforcing value of food and (2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with food (e.g., going to the refrig; asking for food). • Becoming too cold (1) increases the reinforcing value of warmth and (2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with warmth (e.g., putting on a jacket).

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

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

16. SO 3: Table 2 - MOs with a Reinforcer Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect • Pain increase (1) increases the reinforcing effectiveness of a decrease in pain, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, terminated pain (taking an aspirin). • Sleep deprivation (1) increases the reinforcing effectiveness of sleep, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep (getting into bed, turning off lights, turning off the ringer on your cell phone, etc.) (If establishing, also evocative: ee)

17. SO 3: More MOs with a Reinforcer Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect • Becoming too warm (1) increases the reinforcing effectiveness of becoming cooler, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, resulted in becoming cooler (taking off a jacket). • Salt ingestion (1) increases the reinforcing effectiveness of water/liquids, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, led to water/liquids (getting a glass of water, going to a water fountain, etc.) (If establishing, also evocative: ee)

18. SO 4: Table 3 - MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect • Pain decrease (1) decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of a decrease in pain, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, terminated pain. (just like satiation!) • Sleep satiation (1) decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of sleep, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep. (As go together: aa)

19. SO 4: More MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect • Becoming too cold (1) decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of becoming cooler, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to becoming cooler. (taking off a sweater, turning on a fan, etc.) • Sleep satiation (1) decreases the reinforcing value of sleep, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep (lying down, turning off the cell phone, pulling the shades down, etc.)

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

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

22. SO 5: MOs are often confused with SDs • 5A How are they similar? • They both precede behavior • They both evoke behavior (but for very different reasons) • 5B How do they differ? • SDs are correlated with the differential availability of a reinforcer • MOs are correlated with the differential effectiveness of a reinforcer (that is, the extent to which the consequence is “reinforcing” at that moment in time) (confusion is understandable)

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

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

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

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

27. SO 6: Srs that can be affected by food deprivation and satiation (NFE) • Food deprivation would not only make food more reinforcing it would also make the following Srs more reinforcing: • Sight and smell of food • Pictures of food • The word “food” • The sight of the refrigerator • Alternatively, food satiation would decrease the reinforcing value of the above Srs

28. SO 6: CMOs and UMOs (NFE) • When MOs affect conditioned reinforcers and behaviors reinforced by conditioned reinforcers, we call the MO a Conditioned Motivating Operation • When MOs affect unconditioned reinforcers and behaviors reinforced by unconditioned reinforcers, we call the MO an Unconditioned Motivating Operation • Food deprivation is an • UMO for food and any behavior reinforced by food, but a • CMO for a picture of food or the word “food” behavior reinforced by those stimuli • Not requiring that distinction for this class - nor am I going to talk about the three types of CEOs, although Olson et al. do

29. SO 8: Some OBM examples • Feedback Assume: R (making widets) ––> Sc (sight of completed widget) The sight of the completed widget is not a reinforcer Now: MO (fbk): R (making widgets)––> Sr (sight of completed wdgt) Feedback may: (a) make the sight of the completed widget reinforcing - the value altering effect, and (b) evoke making widgets - the behavior altering effect. Note: The sight of the completed widget was present before the feedback, but was not reinforcing. Hence, in this example, the feedback cannot be an SD because the sight of the completed widget was available even when feedback wasn’t. (students seem to have trouble with these and I can’t figure out why, so if you don’t understand them, please ask questions!))

30. SO 8: Some OBM examples • Irritation at the supervisor (you are angry at supv/union conflicts) Assume: MO (no irritation at supv.): R (work slowly) ––> Sc (signs of distress/anger by supv.) The signs of distress/anger by the supervisor are not reinforcers, and may actually be punishers Now: MO (irritation at supervisor): R (sabotage, etc.)––> Sr (signs of distress by supv.) Irritation at supv. may: (a) make signs of distress/anger by supervisor reinforcing - the value altering effect, and (b) evoke sabotage, work slow down, etc. - the behavior altering effect.

31. SO 8: Some OBM examples • Work sampling by supervisor ( objective measurement of performance) Assume: R (working) ––> Sc (supervisor praises or criticizes your work) However, the supervisor’s praise and criticism are not reinforcers or punishers - why? He is not accurately evaluating your performance or doesn’t understand it. Now: MO (work sampling): R (working) ––> Sr/Sp (praise/criticism) Work sampling may: (a) make praise/criticism by supervisor reinforcing/punishing- the value altering effect, and (b) evoke harder work - the behavior altering effect.

32. Questions over SOs 1-8?

33. Olson et al. article The MO and OBM

34. SO 9: Slow interact access example MO (slow internet access): Dial up vs. cable R (accessing internet/email): Sight of email in inbox becomes less reinforcing Slow internet (a) makes sight of email in the inbox less reinforcing, and (b) suppresses internet and email access behaviors - you will do something else as a result and only infrequently check email. MO (fast internet access): R (accessing internet/email): Sr (sight of email in inbox) • MOs can generate escape behaviors that interfere with productive work (and suggest different interventions) (example of where knowledge of MOs may lead us to slightly different interventions)

35. SO 9: Potential advantages of this type of MO manipulation (NFE) • Easier, more effective/efficient interventions • One intervention without considering MO: • Answering all emails within 3 hours is added as a measure of behavior and consequated • However, changing the internet access system is less intrusive and less effortful on the part of management - once it’s done, it’s done. • Does not require on-going monitoring of behavior or delivery of consequences • Increase quality of working life (Olson et al.) • Eliminating aversive environmental events in the environment (relevant to MOs that relate to aversive antecedent events - too hot, too noisy, safety goggles don’t fit well and obscure vision, latex gloves don’t fit well and make it difficult to manipulate objects, etc.)

36. SO 10: Three reasons why people in OBM should know about MOs • May improve precurrent behavior related to intervention design by adding in MO • What does this mean?? (explain first in your own words - what does it mean?)

37. SO 10, cont. 2. May help us identify undesirable (aversive) environmental events that direct behavior in unproductive ways. • Directly related to the slow internet example • Eliminate MOs that evoke unproductive escape behaviors • Mentioned before: safety goggles don’t fit right and obscure vision; gloves don’t fit right and interfere with manual dexterity; bullet proof vests too heavy or bulky

38. SO 10, cont. • May help us account for momentary differences in performance. Why is performance better at one time rather than another? • Fatigue causing error (14 hour shifts in hospitals?) • Fatigue and hunger causing PSY 645 students to make more errors at the end of class and become “inattentive.” Real problem with 3 hour classes! • Inactivity (sitting for long periods of time) causing error • Nicotine deprivation causing inattentiveness, “haziness,” inability to concentrate

39. SO 11: 3 Factors that constitute barriers to MO in OBM (only 1 FE) • Molar interventions and analyses are one barrier in contrast to other areas (working with autistic children) • But Olson et al. state that molecular analyses are indeed relevant • SO: How do Olson et al. argue that a molecular analysis is relevant for analyses and interventions?

40. A word on molecular vs. molar • Molecular perspective: Consequences must follow behavior immediately in order for them to affect behavior (temporal contiguity) • Molar perspective: Consequences do not have to be temporally contiguous; only correlated with behavior over long periods of time

41. Western Way • Western way has historically been molecular • Michael, Malott, Fuqua, Dickinson, Poling • That’s why Michael and Malott go to such effort to distinguish between direct and indirect acting contingencies and analyze molecular variables that may account for the effectiveness of long-delayed consequences (more on this in the next unit on rule-governed behavior) • Strong advocates for molar • Baum, Hineline, within OBM, Mawhinney & Hantula • Many simply ignore the issue but often analyze things from a molar perspective • That is, they talk about a consequence being a direct “reinforcer” even it is delayed by a week, month, etc.

42. Finally, how do Olson et al. deal with it? • Back to the main point. The MO is relevant to OBM even though it is a molecular concept because: The effectiveness of molar interventions are not independent of and may be enabled (translation - may be caused by) the moment-to-moment molecular contingencies. Experimental literature indicates that molecular contingencies control behavior even if they are not explicitly programmed by the researcher. The molar contingencies may alter the molecular contingencies (even if the intervener is not aware of it or did not directly alter those molecular contingencies), but the molecular contingencies are most likely the cause of the behavior changes. Thus, the MO as a “molecular” concept is relevant.

43. SO13: The UMO of activity deprivation/satiation and monitoring performance • Olson et al. example Employees observe a monitoring screen that tracks the operation of expensive machines. Employees need to make changes to the machines if they see something that is out of tolerance to avoid very costly defects in the product. Fidgeting, pacing, looking around are incompatible with and disrupt the vigilance task • Can be generalized to any situation that requires on-going vigilance: i.e., security monitors

44. Activity as an MO • Activity deprivation (Table 2) • Increases the reinforcing value of activity • Reinforcer establishing effect • Evokes behavior that has, in the past, resulted in activity • Evocative effect • Activity satiation (Table 3) • Decreases the reinforcing value of activity • Reinforcer abolishing effect • Suppresses behavior that has, in the past, resulted in activity • Abative effect

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

46. Olson et al. article • Questions? • Comments?

47. Traditional Motivational Theory From Muchinsky

48. SOs 16, 17, & 18: Translation of traditional motivational concepts • Traditional theories of motivation typically address three factors: • Direction: Choice of behaviors/tasks - why do we do what we do at the time we do it • Intensity: How much effort do we expend doing what we do? • Duration: Persistence over time • The MO can account for all three • Reinforcement/consequences also contribute, of course

49. SO 16: Direction • 16A: Direction - what we do at a particular moment in time • 16B: MO The MO determines what is and what is not reinforcing at a particular moment in time and evokes behaviors that have, in the past, resulted in a consequence that is highly reinforcing at that moment

50. SO 17: Intensity The stronger the MO, the more reinforcing the consequence becomes, and the higher the rate of behavior that has, in the past, resulted in that reinforcer. • The more food deprived you are, the higher the rate of food “getting” behaviors • The colder you are, the higher the rate of “warmth” seeking behaviors.