The Motivating Operations Concept: Current Status and Critical Response

Laraway, Sean; Snycerski, Susan; Olson, Ryan; Becker, Bernd W.; Poling, Alan

doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0080-5

Cited by 39 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been hundreds of citations to Michael's early writings on the topic and Laraway et al's. (2003) modification of the term to MO (Laraway, Snycerski, Olson, Becker & Poling, 2014). Although the field of applied behavior analysis has mainly benefitted from Michael's contributions (Iwata, Smith, & Michael, 2000;Miguel, 2013) research areas as diverse as consumer choice, intimate partner violence, organizational behavior management and behavioral pharmacology, (among others), have made use of a behavioral interpretation of motivation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers who have incorporated the MO concept into their applied, experimental or conceptual work have no doubt found it a useful way to talk about motivation with the advantage of more effective prediction and control of behavior (cf. Laraway et al, 2014). Any revision of the definition of a concept that has such widespread acceptance and utility will require a strong argument and ultimately, demonstration of its greater practical value in predicting and controlling behavior before being adopted.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The motivational and discriminative functions of motivating operations

Carbone¹

2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The motivational and discriminative functions of motivating operations

Carbone¹

2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the years since Michael () argued for maintaining the conceptual distinction between discriminative and motivational variables, there has been increasing interest in the MO concept in the applied and conceptual domains of behavior analysis (Fagerstrøm, Foxall, & Arntzen, ; Langthorne, McGill, & O'Reilly, ; Laraway, Snycerski, Olson, Becker, & Poling, ; Lotfizadeh, Edwards, & Poling, ; Maracinni, Houmanfar, & Szarko, ; Rispoli et al, ; Simó‐Pinatella et al, ). This is likely due to the fact that the influence of motivational variables is ubiquitous in real‐world settings, and the MO concept provides a means by which these variables may be described and studied within a behavior analytic framework.…”

Section: Reinforcers Motivating Operations and Number Of Sessions Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions between the effects of food and water motivating operations on food‐ and water‐reinforced responding in mice

Lewon

Spurlock

Peters

et al. 2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined interactions between the effects of food and water motivating operations (MOs) on the food‐ and water‐reinforced operant behavior of mice. In Experiment 1, mice responded for sucrose pellets and then water reinforcement under four different MOs: food deprivation, water deprivation, concurrent food and water deprivation, and no deprivation. The most responding for pellets occurred under food deprivation and the most responding for water occurred under water deprivation. Concurrent food and water deprivation decreased responding for both reinforcers. Nevertheless, water deprivation alone increased pellet‐reinforced responding and food deprivation alone likewise increased water‐reinforced responding relative to no deprivation. Experiment 2 demonstrated that presession food during concurrent food and water deprivation increased in‐session responding for water relative to sessions where no presession food was provided. Conversely, presession water during concurrent food and water deprivation did not increase in‐session responding for pellets. These results suggest that a) the reinforcing value of a single stimulus can be affected by multiple MOs, b) a single MO can affect the reinforcing value of multiple stimuli, and c) reinforcing events can also function as MOs. We consider implications for theory and practice and suggest strategies for further basic research on MOs.

show abstract

“…1 Cumulative peer-reviewed journal articles per year that included the terms setting event (or setting factor) or motivating operation (or establishing operation or abolishing operation) in their titles or abstracts according to the PsycINFO® and ERIC® databases recently published Handbook of Behavior Analysis (Madden, 2012) included the MO (referenced in multiple places) but did not include setting event. Based on the relative prevalence of the MO concept in the contemporary behavior-analytic literature, it is apparent that this concept is now the predominant treatment of motivational events in behavior analysis (see also Laraway et al 2014).…”

Section: On the Distinction Between The Motivating Operation And Settmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Distinction Between the Motivating Operation and Setting Event Concepts

Nosik

Carr

2015

BEHAV ANALYST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, behavior analysts have generally used two different concepts to speak about motivational influences on operant contingencies: setting event and motivating operation. Although both concepts still appear in the contemporary behavior-analytic literature and were designed to address the same antecedent phenomena, the concepts are quite different. The purpose of the present article is to describe and distinguish the concepts and to illustrate their current usage.Keywords Abolishing operation . Establishing operation . Interbehaviorism . Motivating operation . Radical behaviorism . Setting event . Setting factor On the Distinction Between the Motivating Operation and Setting Event ConceptsIn 1938, Skinner introduced the operant as a three-term contingency. Behavioral scientists have long recognized that in addition to stimuli within the three-term contingency, there are other events that may impact the probability of a response (e.g., illness, sleep deprivation). Early efforts to address these motivational influences on behavior included the concepts of drive, deprivation, satiation, among others (Miguel, 2013). For the last half-century or so, behavior analysts have generally used two different terms to speak about these events: setting event and motivating operation. The purpose of this article is to describe and distinguish these two concepts and to illustrate their current usage.The setting factor concept was introduced by Kantor (1959) and represents the first extensive behavioral treatment of motivational events.

show abstract

The Motivating Operations Concept: Current Status and Critical Response

Cited by 39 publications

References 79 publications

The motivational and discriminative functions of motivating operations

The motivational and discriminative functions of motivating operations

Interactions between the effects of food and water motivating operations on food‐ and water‐reinforced responding in mice

On the Distinction Between the Motivating Operation and Setting Event Concepts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About