Download
motivating operations n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Motivating Operations PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Motivating Operations

Motivating Operations

481 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Motivating Operations

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Motivating Operations Berkshire Association for Behavior Analysis and Therapy October 13th & 14th, 2005 Jack Michael, Ph.D. Psychology Department Western Michigan University

  2. Brief history a. Skinner, 1938 & 1953, NQR b. K & S, 1950, better c. Michael's extension Figure 1. EO defining effects, Figure 2. MO defining effects Figure 3. EO and MO compared Motivating Operations 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

  3. 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 I. Definition and Characteristics

  4. 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 establishes food as a reinforcer. Aversive stim establishes its reduction as a reinforcer. Establishing operation is good for 2 reasons: (a) includes both deprivation/satiation & aversive stim, (b) implies the environment rather than an internal state.

  5. A. Basic features: Brief history (cont'd.) c. Michael, 1982 JEAB: 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:

  6. Fig. 1 Establishing Operations (EOs): 2 Defining Effects Rfer Establishing or Abolishing Effect 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.) EOs establish the current rein-forcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event. (And establish includes the effect in the opposite direction, abolish.) Food deprivation increases and food ingestion decreases the current frequency of any behavior that has been reinforced1 by food. reinforcing effectiveness of 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. Problems: (1) EO includes estab and abolish (2) Evocative/abative seems secondary

  7. Fig. 2 Motivating Operations (MOs): 2 Defining Effects Value-Altering Effect Behavior-Altering Effect MOs alter the current rein-forcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, event. MOs alter any behavior that has been reinforced by the same stimulus, object, or event that is altered in value by the same MO. Reinforcer Evocative Effect Abative Effect Establishing Effect Abolishing 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.

  8. Establishing Operations (EOs): 2 Defining Effects Rfer Establishing or Abolishing Effect 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.) EOs establish the current rein-forcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event. (And establish includes the effect in the opposite direction, abolish.) Figure 3: EO and MO comparison Motivating Operations (MOs): 2 Defining Effects Value-Altering Effect Behavior-Altering Effect MOs alter the current rein-forcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, event. MOs alter any behavior that has been reinforced by the same stimulus, object, or event that is altered in value by the same MO. Reinforcer Evocative Effect Abative Effect Establishing Effect Abolishing Effect

  9. Motivating Operations Where are we? I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic features B. Important details next 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

  10. I. Definition and Characteristics 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

  11. IB. ImportantDetails 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. IB. More Details (finished at last) Evocative/abative (antecedent) variables with current effects: Operant repertoire: (MO + SD)----->R relations Respondent repertoire: US or CS----->UR or CR 5. Current vs Future Effects; Evocative/Abative vs Function-Altering Effects; Antecedents vs Consequents 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

  16. 1st. Review: Basic features, important details. Brief history (Skinner, K & S, Michael) EO defining effects with examples IA. Basic Features. 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

  17. Motivating Operations Where are we? I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic features B. Important details next 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. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.)

  21. 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∆ condition that was not obtained? Nothing.

  22. 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.2Nothing.

  23. 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?

  24. 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 next 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. 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). IIIA. UMOs vs. CMOs

  26. IIIB. Nine main human UMOs1 Five deprivation and satiation UMOs: food, water, sleep, activity, and oxygen2. UMOs related to sex. Two UMOs related to uncomfortable temperatures: being too cold or too warm. A UMO consisting of painful stimulation increase.3

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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

  33. 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.

  34. IIIB. Practice Exercise #1: UMO Effects Provide each of the following: • Evocative effect of sleep deprivation. • Reinforcer-abolishing effect of water ingestion. • Abative effect of pain decrease. (Be careful.) • Reinforcer-establishing effect of becoming too cold. • Abative effect of pain increase. (trick question) • Rfer-abolishing effect of engaging in much activity. • Evocative effect of sex deprivation. • Rfer-abolishing effect of a return to normal temperature after having been too warm. (What has been rfing?) • Evocative effect of pain increase. (Be careful.) 10. Rfer-establishing effect of pain increase. (Be careful.)

  35. IIIB. Answers for Exercise #1: UMO Effects • Increased current frequency of all behavior that has facilitated going to sleep. • Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of water. • Decreased current frequency of all behavior that has been rfed by pain decrease (not "by pain"). • Increased reinforcing effectiveness of temperature increase. • Pain increase does not have an abative effect. • Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of activity. • Increased current frequency of all behavior that has led to sexual stimulation. • Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of becoming cooler. • Increased current freq of all behavior that has reduced pain. Increased reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction.

  36. 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 next 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

  37. IIIC. Weakening the Effects of UMOs For practical reasons it may be necessary to weaken some UMO effects. Permanent weakening of UMO's unlearned rfer-establishing 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.

  38. 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)

  39. 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)

  40. 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.

  41. 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).

  42. 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 next 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

  43. 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 E. Multiple effects: Many environmental events have more than one behavioral effect.

  44. tone off rfmt off tone ON rfmt off tone ON rfmt ON R1 R2 3 sec R1 = treadle press, R2 = key peck, rfmt = 3" grain available 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 onset is SD for key peck, and Sr for treadle push.

  45. pecking key key lights aperture light Pigeon Operant Chamber food aperture key lights grain hopper down 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). treadle food aperture

  46. pecking key key lights aperture light Pigeon Operant Chamber food aperture key lights grain hopper up 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). treadle food aperture

  47. pecking key key lights aperture light Pigeon Operant Chamber food aperture key lights grain hopper down 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). treadle food aperture

  48. 1. SD and Sr in a simple operant chain • Evocative/abative (antecedent) variables with current effects: • Operant repertoire: (MO + SD)----->R relations • Respondent repertoire: CS----->CR • Function-altering (consequence) variables with future effects: • Operant consequences: R followed by SR, SP, Sr, Sp; R occurs without consequence • (Respondent pairing/unpairing: CS paired w/ US; CS without US) (Above is from the earlier section IB5, slide 31.)

  49. 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.

  50. 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).