Beyond the EOThursday, April 6, 2006

10:45 to 11:45 A.M.

This is a copy of the PowerPoint slide presentation that I gave at the BASIL annual conference on April 5, 2006, at the Holiday Inn Select in Naperville, Illinois. My presentation was from 10:45 to 11:45 a.m.

Jack Michael, Ph.D.Emeritus Professor

Psychology DepartmentWestern Michigan University

email: jack.michael@wmich.eduwebsite: jackmichael.orgphone: (269) 372-3075. FAX: (269) 372-3096

The essential material for this presentation was on slides 1 through 18. Slides 19 through 37 will be used when I give a similar presentation scheduled for a longer time.

2

"Wanting something"Commonsense psychology: What people do at any particular

moment is a function of two variables: knowing how and wanting. Both must be present.

In the Learning Theory of 1930-1950 (e.g, Clark Hull) knowing how = learning or habit strength; wanting = drive strength; behavior is the product of the two.

A behavioral perspective based on B. F. Skinner's analysis of the drive concept (1938 B. of O., 1953 SHB): Wanting something* means two things.

1)The occurrence of what is wanted would function as a reinforcer at that moment.

2)Any behavior that has obtained that reinforcer will be strong at that moment. (e.g. food, outside; second is the usual evidence)

*Not Skinner's language

3

Drive and the EOKeller and Schoenfeld, 1950*. Drive refers to a relation

between certain environmental variables (establishing operations) and certain changes in behavior. Food deprivation, for example, establishes food as a reinforcer.

Michael, 1982: Establishing operation (EO) can be used to refer to any** environmental variable that

1. Increases the current reinforcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event.

2. Increases the current frequency of (evokes) all behavior that has obtained that stimulus, object, or event in the past.

*Based on Skinner's Behavior of Organisms. (1938), but I think K & S wanted a term that was less susceptible to internalization than drive.

**Skinner's used deprivation & aversive stimulation--but these were too narrow for me (how about salt ingestion, temperature, and the sketch of a cat?)

4

Two Defining Effects

Increases (but also decreases) the current reinforcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event.

Here is a better arrangement but it has some problems.

1. Reinforcer Establishing Effect:

2. Evocative Effect: Increases (but also decreases) the current frequency of all behavior that has been reinforced by that stimulus, object, or event.

5

Establishing Operations: Two Defining Effects

A. Rfer Establishing Effect1. Rfer Establishing Effect: An Increase in Rfing Effectiveness

B. Evocative Effect1. An increase in the Current Frequency of the Relevant Behavior: Behavior is Evoked

2. Rfer Abolishing Effect: A Decrease in Rfing Effectiveness

2. A Decrease in the Current Frequency of the Relevant Behavior: (Let Evoke refer to both directions.)

Problems:

Establishing = abolishing?

Abolishing is secondary?

Evocative = a decrease?

Evocative is secondary?

New terms were invented partly to over come these difficulties.

Abolishing was ok as an opposite to establishing, but I had no good opposite for evocative until Laraway, Snycerski and Poling introduced abative.

6

Motivating Operations (MOs): Two Defining Effects

Value-Altering Effect

MOs alter the current reinforcing effectiveness of some S, object, or event.

Behavior-Altering Effect

MOs alter the current behav. of all types of R that have been rfed by the same S, object, or event that is altered in value by the same MO.

Evocative Effect: an increase in the current frequency

Abative Effect: a decrease in the current frequency of all relevant behavior.

Reinforcer Establishing Effect: An increase in reinforcing effectiveness.

Reinforcer Abolishing Effect: A decrease in reinforcing effectiveness.

Easier to learn and easier to apply.

7

Motivating Operations: Food ExampleReinforcer Establishing Effect: Food deprivation increases the

current reinforcing effectiveness of food.

Evocative Effect: Food deprivation increases the current frequency of all types of behavior that have been rfed with food.

(It is easy to say "that are rfed with food", but it should always be in the past tense, "that have been rfed with food.")

Reinforcer Abolishing Effect: : Food ingestion decreases the current reinforcing effectiveness of food.

Abative Effect: Food ingestion decreases the current frequency of all types of behavior that have been (not are) reinforced with food.

8

Motivating Operations: Pain ExampleReinforcer Establishing Effect: An increase in pain increases

the current reinforcing effectiveness of pain reduction.

Evocative Effect: An increase in pain increases current frequency of all types of behavior that have been reinforced by pain reduction. (It is easy to slip up and say reinforced by pain; but in general pain seldom functions as a reinforcer*; only pain reduction or removal can reinforce.)

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.

*There are exceptions, where pain functions as a reinforcer.

9

1. What about MOs and punishment? Only recently considered-- most of MO theory and knowledge relates to MOs for rfmt. (Some more on this is in a later section.)

2. Direct versus an indirect effect? a) MO alters response frequency directly (w/out SD). b) MO alters evocative strength of relevant SDs.

3. Not just frequency: Also magnitude (more or less forceful R), latency (shorter or longer time from MO or SD to R), relative frequency (R occurrences per response opportunity), & others.

c) Also there are establishing/abolishing effects, and evocative/abative effects with respect to relevant conditioned reinforcers (but not for the same response).

Additional Issues

10

A Possible MisunderstandingThat the behavior-altering effect is a secondary product of the

value-altering effect. That the altered response frequency is solely the result of contact with a more effective reinforcer. Or that it follows that contact and behavior is increased or decreased because of the smaller or greater strengthening effect of the reinforcer on subsequent responses.

Not true. Behavior-altering effects can be seen in extinction responding--that is, without contacting the relevant reinforcer.

Behavior increases when the MO is strengthened even before the reinforcer is contacted.

Best thought of as Two Separate Effects.

(From an evolutionary perspective an organism should begin seeking reinforcement when the relevant MO becomes strong, and not only after encountering a more effective reinforcer.)

11

But: The two effects do often work together. Reinforcing effectiveness will only be seen in the future, after some behavior has been reinforced, but the future can be immediately after the MO alteration. Thus increased rfer effectiveness will combine with an increased evocative effect.

If behavior is occurring too infrequently, strengthening the MO will result in responses being followed by more effective rfmt (rfer establishing 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 will make no difference.

If behavior is occurring too frequently, weakening the MO will reduce the frequency by reducing the rfer effectiveness (rfer abolishing effect); and also reducing the evocative strength of the MO (abative effect).

12

A Cognitive Interpretation

The evocative and abative effects of an MO occur only because the individual understands--can verbally describe--the situation and behaves appropriately as a result of that understanding.

In general, functional relations between environmental variables and behavior do not require the organism's understanding in the sense of verbal description. Consider the behavior of nonhuman animals like rats.

Reinforcement automatically adds the reinforced behavior to the repertoire that will be evoked or abated by the relevant MO.

A Behavioral Interpretation

Punishment and extinction automatically subtract the punished or extinguished behavior from the repertoire that will be evoked or abated by the relevant MO.

13

Generality and Motivating Operations Generality refers to the extent to which behavior trained in one situation occurs in a

new and different situation.Train a monkey to press a lever when a 500 Hz tone sounds. Use food pellets as rfmt, and, of course, the animal is food deprived during training.This results in a repertoire consisting of a relation between the tone, the lever press and

the food-deprivation MO. (SD + MO results in the occurrence of R)A few days later put the food-deprived monkey in a very different chamber--different

floor, different smells, lever looks different, etc. and tone is different--100 Hz. Will lever pressing occur? Probably not. The stimuli are too different. A few days later put the monkey, but food satiated, in the original chamber. Will lever pressing occur? Probably not. The food deprivation MO is too weak. Train a child to name objects, using attention and small edibles as reinforcement.

Suppose that we examine the previously learned repertoire in a different physical setting, with a different trainer, etc. Correct object naming might not occur because the stimulus situation is too different.

Suppose we examine the previously learned repertoire when attention and small edibles are no longer effective as reinforcers. The trained behavior might not occur, even though the stimulus situation is the same, because the MO is too weak.

(But if escape from the situation is reinforcing, behavior may still occur--we have a new and strong MO.)

14

Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations, MO vs. SD

Both MOs and SDs are learned, operant, antecedent, evocative/abative relations.

But SDs evoke (S∆s abate) because of the differential availability of a reinforcer.

Whereas MOs evoke or abate because of the differential value (differential reinforcing effectiveness) of a reinforcer.

But more is needed on differential availability.

A. The General Contrast

15

SD: Increasingly Precise Definition

"An SD (discriminative stimulus) is a type of S that evokes a type of R." [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)]. (*comment on S-change decrement)

"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.

16

SD: MO in S∆ condition

"An SD evokes its R because it has been reinforced in the SD and has occurred w/o rfmt. in the S∆." (But, occurring w/o rfmt in S∆ would be behaviorally irrelevant unless the unavailable "rfmt" would have been effective as rfmt if it been obtained.)

This means that the relevant MO for the rfmt in SD must also be in effect during S∆.

(*With ordinary lab procedure, S∆ w/o MO not thought of.)

In everyday language: To develop control by an SD the organism must have wanted something in the SD, responded, and obtained it; and must have wanted it in the S∆, responded, and did not obtain it: Success in SD and failure in S∆. Failing to obtain something that was not wanted is not failure.

17

Two SD requirements: (1) R has been reinforced with food in SD and (2) has occurred w/o food rfmt. in S∆, but if obtained, food would have been effective as reinforcement for R in S∆.

(1) Food deprivation meets the first requirement. Food has been available and has typically followed R in the presence of food deprivation, or in the presence of related internal stimuli.

(2) R may have occurred w/o being followed by food in S∆, but if obtained (during food satiation or during the absence of deprivation-related stimuli) food would not have been effective as reinforcement.

Common sense language: (1) Food was wanted in the SD condition, and obtained. (2) What was wanted in the S∆ condition that was not available? Nothing re food. Food was not obtained, but with no food deprivation MO, food was not wanted.

Food deprivation does not meet the second requirement as an SD but easily meets the two MO requirements.

How about food deprivation as a possible SD?

18

Two SD requirements: (1) R has been reinforced with pain reduction in SD (painful stim. present) and (2) has occurred w/o pain reduction rfmt. in S∆ (when painful stim. was not present?), but if obtained, pain reduction would have been effective as reinforcement for R in S∆.

(1) Pain meets the first requirement. Pain reduction has been available and 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 if obtained (when no pain is present) pain reduction would not have been effective as reinforcement–would not have been possible.

Common sense language: (1) Pain reduction was wanted in the SD condition, and obtained. (2) What was wanted in the S∆ condition that was not available? Nothing re pain. Pain reduction was not obtained, but with no pain, pain reduction was not wanted--was not rfing. (*Do we want pain so that pain reduction rfmt is available?? No.)

Painful stimulation does not meet the second requirement as an SD but easily meets the two MO requirements.

How About Pain Onset as an SD?

19

UMOs are MOs, events, operations, or stimulus conditions, with unlearned reinforcer-establishing/abolishing effects.

CMOs are MOs, events, operations, or stimulus conditions, with learned reinforcer-establishing/abolishing effects.

The distinction depends solely upon reinforcer-estab/abolish effects. Evocative/abative effects are irrelevant because such effects are always learned.

UMO: We do not have to learn to be reinforced by food after food deprivation.

CMO: The capacity to be reinforced by having a key, when we have to open a locked door (reinforcer estab. effect) depends on our learning history with doors and keys.

(And we also have to learn how to obtain a key, an evocative relation.)

UMOs vs CMOs

Elaborate a little on UMOs and CMOs if time permits.

20

(Use if time permits.)

Main Human UMOs

1. Five deprivation/satiation UMOs2. UMOs related to sex3. Temperature UMOs4. Painful stimuli as UMOs

21

Weakening the Effects of UMOsFor practical reasons it may be necessary to weaken some UMO effects.

Reinforcer-establishing effects: Permanent weakening of a UMO's unconditioned rfer-establishing effect is not possible. Pain increase will always make pain reduction effective as rfmt. Food deprivation will always increase the effectiveness of food as reinforcement.

Temporary weakening by reinforcer-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: These depend on a history of rfmt, and can be reversed by an extinction procedure–let the evoked R occur without rfmt (not possible in practice if control of rfer is not possible)

Abative effects of punishment history can be reversed by recovery-from-punishment procedure--occurrence of R without the punishment.

(What about bodily contact (a pat on the back), attention? music?)

(Use if time permits.)

22

UMOs for Punishment Any 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 (1) does not depend on learning, then the variable is a UMO.

(*We really need the CMO concept here. The UMOs below are not really UMOs, as will be considered in detail in the section on CMOs.)

(Use if time permits.)

Reinforcer-establishing effects (Abative effects are too complex for here.)

UMOs: Pain reduction will always be effective as rfmt unless the current intensity is so high that no increase is possible. Also true for other unconditioned pners (some sounds, odors, tastes, etc.).

MOs for conditioned pners. Most punishing events for humans are conditioned punishers, not unconditioned. There are two kinds.

An S that was paired with an unconditioned punisher (SP) is controlled by the same UMO that controlled the unconditioned punisher (see above).

An S that was paired with reduced availability of reinforcers is controlled by the MOs for those reinforcers (continued on next slide).

23

MOs for Punishment (cont'd.)

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. The MOs 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.

Removing food as a punisher (or changing to a stimulus correlated with less food) will only work if food is currently effective as a reinforcer, so the MO for food removal as punishment is food deprivation. (An exception is related to a highly verbal human and long-term effects.)

(Use if time permits)

24

Conditioned Motivating Operations: Three kinds

Variables that alter the reinforcing effectiveness of other stimuli, objects, and events but only as a result a learning history can be called Conditioned Motivating Operations, CMOs.

There seem to be three kinds of CMOs:

A. Surrogate: CMO-S: An S paired with another MO which has the MO effect of the MO it was paired with.

B. Reflexive: CMO-R: A warning stimulus in an avoidance procedure which (1) makes its own removal effective as rfmt, and (2) evokes any behavior that has accomplished that effect.

C. Transitive: CMO-T: A stimulus that is related to the relation between another stimulus and some form of rfmt (1) establishes the reinforcing effectiveness of the other stimulus, and (2) evokes all behavior that has produced that stimulus.

(Use if time permits)

25

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.

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.

CMO-R: Human Examples(Use if time permits)

So the request is an SD. But, it also begins a brief period that is a warning stimulus, and if a rsp is not made soon, some mild social worsening will occur. The asker may repeat the question more loudly, and will think you are strange if you do not respond. You would consider your own 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 some-where) the CMO-R is probably the main component.

26

"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."

Clearly it is evoked by the person's performing the kindness. And the "You're welcome" acknowledgment is the most obvious rfmt. So the kindness is an SD in the presence of which a "Thanks" response can receive a "You're welcome."

Human Examples (cont'd.)

What evokes the thanking rsp, and what is its rfmt?

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 within a short period of time would be considered inappropriate.

(Use if time permits)

27

In applied behavior analysis the CMO-R is often an unrecognized component of procedures used for training individuals with defective social/verbal 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.

Human Examples: Academic Demand

(Use if time permits)

28

Human CMO-T: Flashlight example The rfing effectiveness of many human conditioned rfers is dependent

on other stimulus conditions because of a learning history. Thus conditioned reinforcing effectiveness is dependent on a context. When the context is not appropriate the S may be available, but is not accessed because it is not effective as 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 behavior that has been rfed by obtaining a flashlight. The motivative nature of the this relation is not widely appreciated. The sudden darkness is usually interpreted as an SD for behavior that has obtained a flashlight. But are flashlights more available in the dark? No. They are more valuable.

(Use if time permits)

29

CMO-T: Slotted screw example Consider a workman disassembling a piece of equipment, with an assistant

providing tools as they are requested. The workman encounters 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--it is a CMO-T, not an SD.

There are SDs involved in this situation. The screw is an SD for appropriate unscrewing motions. The request is also dependent upon the availability of the assistant as an SD. But it is a CMO-T for the request.

(Use if time permits)

30

CMO-T: A danger stimulusA night security guard patrolling an area hears a suspicious sound. He

activates his mobile phone which signals another guard, who then activates his own phone and asks if help is needed (the rfmt for the first guard's response).

Is the suspicious sound an SD for contacting the other guard? Only if the rfmt for the response is more available in the presence than in the absence of the suspicious sound, which it is not. The suspicious sound makes the response 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∆. It is defective in two ways: The relevant rfmt is just as available in the 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 the phone and saying "Hello," the rfmt for which (some response by the person phoning) has not been available from phones that have not sounded.

Note that the danger signal is not a CMO-R for calling the other guard. It is reinforced by producing another S, not its own removal.

(Use if time permits)

31

CMO-T and language training It is increasingly recognized that mand training is an important part of

language programs for individuals with very inadequate 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 in this way the rsp comes under control of 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 can be a means to another end.

(Use if time permits)

32

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, a mand for a pencil and a piece of paper can be taught.

This approach is a part of a number of current approaches to teaching verbal behavior to children with autism, and is similar to Hart and Risley's (1975) procedure called incidental teaching.

(Use if time permits)

33

Practical implications of CMO-T vs. SD interpretations

A CMO-T is a stimulus that evokes behavior because of its relation to the value of a consequence; the 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 would seem inadequate or at least less effective than the more precise manipulation.

This issue is an example of terminological refinement, not a discovery of any new empirical relations. The value of this refinement, should it have value, will be found in the improved theoretical and practical effectiveness of those whose verbal behavior has been affected by it.

(Use if time permits)

34

General Implications of MOs for Applied Behavior Analysis. Behavior analysis makes extensive use of the three-term contingency relation

involving stimulus, response, and consequence. However, (1) the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of the consequence in

developing control by the stimulus depends on an MO. And (2) 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 establishing operations.

(Use if time permits)

35

The slide show has ended. If you wish to contact me about the material covered or other related topics, please use the email address below. If you would like a copy of the slides email me to that effect, or down load the presentation from my website.

Jack Michael, Ph.D.Emeritus Professor

Psychology DepartmentWestern Michigan University

email: jack.michael@wmich.eduwebsite: jackmichael.orgphone: (269) 372-3075

fax: (269) 372-3096

36