A comment on Edwards, Lotfizadeh, and Poling (2019) on motivating operations and stimulus control

Rethinking motivating operations: A reply to commentaries on Edwards, Lotfizadeh, and Poling (2019)

“…Lechago's () observation that “releasers” or “sign stimuli” associated with fixed (or modal) action patterns, such as those described in our description of extreme stimulus generalization and “vacuum activity,” do not qualify as S D s is an astute and appropriate point. We agree with Carbone () that a better example of extreme stimulus generalization would be Skinner's () example of the emission of a mand in the apparent absence of any relevant S D .…”

“…Laraway and Snycerski (), Lechago (), and Miguel () suggested that the current definition of the MO—specifically the component describing the behavior‐altering effect —is preferable to what we have proposed because MOs, they argue, can evoke behavior in the absence of any apparent mediation by S D s. As evidence, Laraway and Syncerski and Miguel describe a rat pressing a lever under constant stimulus conditions but varying food deprivation (MO) levels. Response rate changes as a function of level of deprivation, which they present as evidence that the MO directly alters the frequency of a response in the absence of any mediational influences of S D s.…”

“…Lechago () and Miguel () question how the emission of automatically reinforced behavior can be accounted for with our revised definition. Lechago describes a child clapping her hands when a relevant MO is in effect.…”

“…We now move on to the issue of the CMO and its utility for behavior analysts. We begin with the “transitive CMO” (CMO‐T) because this variant of the CMO was defended most vociferously (Carbone, ; Laraway & Snycerski, ; Lechago, ; Miguel, ; Petursdottir, ). There is no need to break down another behavioral chain example because it is abundantly clear that the commentators who addressed this concept did not disagree with our description of the behavioral chain in terms of conditional discrimination, neither did we disagree with their analyses in any of the examples provided.…”

“…Several commentators questioned our dismissal of the “reflexive CMO” (CMO‐R) concept (Carbone, ; Laraway & Snycerski, ; Lechago, ; Petursdottir, ). In line with Michael's () original analysis, these commentators' defense of the CMO‐R is based on the reasoning that a conditioned aversive stimulus should not be classified as an S D because “in the absence of the [conditioned aversive] stimulus, there is no possibility that the [response] could have failed to terminate the [conditioned aversive] stimulus” (Lechago, p. 27).…”