Motivating Operations

1
Motivating Operations
Berkshire Association for Behavior Analysis and
Therapy
October 13th 14th, 2005

• Jack Michael, Ph.D.

Psychology Department Western Michigan University
2
Timetable 1955 (KU) repertoire based heavily on
SHB (re motivation, Chapters 9, 10, 11) and also
Wm. James lectures, and to some extent K S (from
Wike). 1957 (U of H) SHB for grad courses, KS
for an undergrad learning course (2 semesters).
Thoroughly exposed to estab. oper. in Chapter 9
and 10. 1958 or 59 Holland-Skinner disks from
Harvard course. Used them for some
instruction. 1960 (ASU) Used H-S program in
teaching Psych 112--1961 (?) until Keller took
over 112 in 1964-65. Deprivation and aversive
stimulation as motivational operations. 1960-1967
Gave many talks on behavior modification,
rehabilitation, etc. It is not clear that I made
much use of the motivation area, but probably it
played a role in some highly general talks. 1967
(WMU) Taught VB (Psych 260), and statistics,
JEAB, Indiv. Org. Res. Methodology (IORM), and
eventually Psych 151. For 151 I used SHB, H-S,
various sources. I could not determine by looking
at old course materials when I started using the
EO concept in the undergrad course, or in the VB
course when the mand was covered. By 1980 I am
pretty sure it was well developed. Critical was a
grad seminar on Skinner where a group of very
effective grad students and I discussed the SE
(transitive CEO) at great length. I started using
EO as a general term, including both deprivation
and aversive stim (salt ingestion issue), and
most importantly, from my perspective, with
respect to learned EOs (sketch of a cat, slotted
screw). Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing
between discriminative and motivational functions
of stimuli. JEAB, 37, 149-155. Michael, J.
(1988). Establishing operations and the mand.
TAVB, 6, 3-9. Michael, J. (1993). Establishing
operations. TBA, 16, 191-206. Michael, J. (2000).
Implications and refinements of the EO concept.
JABA, 33, 401-410. Laraway, S., Snycerski, S.,
Michael, J., Poling, A. (2003). Motivating
operations and terms to describe them Some
further refinements. JABA, 36, 407-413.
3
First a personal historical perspective1
UCLA, 1943, 1946-1955 B.A., M.A., Ph.D. in
psychology.
Main interests Physiological psych, learning
theory (Hull2, Tolman -- not much Skinner),
statistics, philosophy of science.
1st academic position, 1955-57, Psych Dept at
Kansas Univ.
Intro psych for non majors as a teaching
responsibility but not a major one Traditional
eclectic intro text typical course format-- 3
lectures per week, exams every 5 weeks or so.
My approach to lecturing Keep a little ahead of
the class in the text, supplement text with
information from other sources, mainly from my
own library.
Studied Skinner's Science and Human Behavior to
provide lecture material for the upcoming section
on learning, and it was perfect for my lectures
in the intro course.3
Section II is the comprehensive basic behavior
analysis approach that I soon adopted and used
all my life.4
4
Phase 1 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human
behavior. New York Macmillan.
Chapters 4 to 12, Section II, The Analysis of
Behavior1
4. Reflexes and conditioned reflexes (respondent
relations) 5. Operant behavior (rfmt, extinction
conditioned rfers) 6. Shaping and maintaining
operant behavior (differential rfmt, intermittent
rfmt--interval, ratio) 7. Operant discrimination
(discriminative stimuli--SDs, discriminative
repertoires, attention) 8. The controlling
environment (generalization, discrimination) 9.
Deprivation and satiation (needs and drives)2
10. Emotion (as a predisposition3, responses that
vary together in emotion, emotional operations)
11. Aversion, avoidance, anxiety (aversive
stimuli, conditioned aversive stimuli, escape,
avoidance) 12. Punishment (does it work? how?
by-products, alternatives)
5
My slight modifications of the SHB arrangement
1. Unlearned environment-behavior relations 2.
Respondent relations (conditioning, extinction1,
S-change decrement, discrimination, and
others2) Aside on behavior-altering vs
function-altering relations, considered in detail
later 3. Reinforcement basic relation and three
qualifications (R-SR delay, stimulus conditions,
motivating operations3) 4. Extinction4 5.
Punishment basic relation and three
qualifications 6. Schedules of reinforcement 7.
Motivating operations (2 defining effects, human
UMOs, multiple effects, CMOs, others5) 8.
Discriminative stimulus control (stimulus change
decrement, SD and S?) 9. Conditioned
reinforcement and punishment
10. Escape and avoidance6
6
Phase 1 Science and Human Behavior (cont'd.)
So, motivation is concerned with the operations
of deprivation and satiation and aversive
stimulation.
Deprivation increases and satiation decreases the
probability of behavior that has been reinforced
with the relevant reinforcer.1
An increase or decrease in aversive stimulation
increases or decreases the probability of
behavior that has terminated that type of
aversive stimulation.
What about the term drive?2
Skinner used it extensively in Beh. of Organisms
(Chapters 9 and 10), and also in the William
James Lectures (1947)3, but by SHB (1953) the
chapter title was not "Drive", but rather
"Deprivation and Satiation". Drive occurred
frequently, but it was accompanied by much
cautionary language.
I avoided the term (without thinking about it),
because of its internal implications. Also I was
now uncomfortable with Hull's theoretical4
approach (despite my dissertation).
7
Excerpt from Skinner's 1947 William James
Lectures, from page 31 of Chapter 2, "Verbal
behavior as a scientific subject matter." His use
of the drive concept.
. . . "We may begin with the type of vb which
involves the fewest variables. In any verbal
community we observe that certain responses are
characteristically followed by certain
consequences. Wait is followed by someone's
waiting, Shh by silence, and so on. . . .The case
is defined by the fact that the form of the
response is related to a particular consequence.
There is a simple non-verbal parallel. Out! has
the same ultimate effect as turning the knob and
pushing against the door. The explanation of both
behaviors is the same. They are examples of
law-of-effect, or what I should like to call
operant conditioning. Each response is acquired
and continues to be maintained in strength
because it is frequently followed by an
appropriate consequence. The verbal response may
have a slightly different "feel," but this is due
to the special dynamic properties which arise
from the mediation of the reinforcing organism.
The basic relation is the same. The particular
consequence which is used to account for the
appearance of behavior of this sort - to use a
technical term, the reinforcement for the
response - is not the controlling variable.
Reinforcement is merely the operation which
establishes control. In changing the strength of
such a response we manipulate any condition which
alters what we call the drive. This is true
whether the door is opened with a "twist and
push" or with an "out!" We can make either
response more likely to appear by increasing the
drive to get outside - as by putting an
attractive object beyond the door. We can reduce
the strength of either by reducing the drive - as
by introducing some object which strengthens
staying in. Our control over the verbal response
Out!, as in the case of any response showing a
similar relations to a subsequent reinforcement,
is thus reduced to our control of the underlying
drive.
8
Phase 2 Keller, F. S., Schoenfeld, W. N.
(1950). Principles of psychology Chapter 9,
Motivation
First read it at in 1955 or 561. K S2 was
written in 1950, but I read it after I was very
familiar with Skinner's 1953 Science and Human
Behavior, and made little use of it at that time.
2nd academic position, 1957-60, University of
Houston.
Here I used SHB and Verbal Behavior (available in
1957) for graduate seminars and informal
discussion sessions.3
Also used K S for two terms as text for an
undergrad learning course. I don't remember much
about my dealing with the motivation chapter it
was certainly assigned and I lectured and
examined over it. I think I simply adopted the
expression "establishing operation" meaning
"establishes something as a reinforcer."4
9
Phase 3 Holland, J. G., Skinner, B. F. (1961).
The analysis of behavior. New York McGraw-Hill.
1957-58, while at Houston I obtained the circular
disks used at Harvard in the programmed course.
Very interesting! The format1 not convenient for
use in a course without the teaching machines,
but the content covered the essential2 aspects of
Section 2 of SHB, and programmed instruction was
a very exciting new behavioral development
3rd academic position, 1960-67, Arizona State
University
Taught undergrad statistics, several grad
courses, and by 1962 I was teaching an intro
course for majors, using the Holland-Skinner
programmed textbook3 (and my own lab manual4).
Fred Keller started teaching that intro course
using his PSI5 approach in late 64-early 65, and
using KS as his text, but I made little or no
use of the book once the H-S program came out.
10
Phase 4 Motivation in decline
Although quite important to Skinner (1938, 1953)
and to Keller and Schoenfeld (1950),1 motivation
during the 60s and 70s was hardly mentioned as a
significant behavioral concept.
Deprivation was mentioned but played only a small
role. Why?
(1) Knowledge of intermittent rfmt schedules2
showed that behavior is much more sensitive to
rfmt frequency and rfmt schedule than to
deprivation.
(2) Wants, needs, drives, etc. were usually
explanatory fictions referring to inner entities
inferred from the behavior they were supposed to
explain.
(3) Also with increasing applied work,
generalized conditioned rfmt (praise, points,
money) was usually the immediate consequence for
much human behavior, which made deprivation and
aversive stimulation less necessary3.
But ultimately motivational variables could not
be ignored without leaving the system incomplete.

11
4th (and last) academic position 1967-2003, WMU
Taught undergrad VB course (called "Social
Psych"), statistics, JEAB, Indiv. Org. Res.
Methodology, and eventually (1970) an intro
course for majors, for which I used SHB, H-S, and
various sources.
For my teaching I had to have consistent,
coherent, concepts and principles1. So
deprivation/satiation and aversive stimulation
must be dealt with, even though such effects seem
less important than reinforcement frequency.
Deprivation increases and satiation decreases the
frequency2 of behavior that has been reinforced
with the relevant reinforcer.
An increase or decrease in aversive stimulation
increases or decreases the (current) frequency of
behavior that has terminated that type of
aversive stimulation.
12
Phase 5 Necessity for a general concept
But this was somewhat unsatisfactory.
(1) There are a few operations with similar
effects but which are neither deprivation or
aversive stim. (salt ingestion, blood loss,
perspiration temperature too high/low)?1
(2) Also, I needed a technical term for this area
that would refer to deprivation, aversive
stimulation, and any other variables that have
similar effects. Motivation is too broad in its
ordinary usage (including reinforcement). Drive
lends itself too easily to an internal
interpretation.
The solution Sometime during the early or mid
70s it occurred to me that what these operations
did was establish something as a reinforcer.
Let's call them establishing operations.2a, 2b
An unanticipated result of this usage was to
emphasize the reinforcer-establishing (later
"value-altering") effect as separate from the
evocative (later "behavior-altering" effect much
more than with K S (1950) or SHB (1953).3
13
Learned motivation1 The sketch of a cat
Skinner's example of how to get someone to mand a
pencil was the initial stimulus for the learned
EO analysis.
The sketch of a cat In Verbal Behavior (p. 253)
Skinner explained how one could use basic verbal
relations to get a person to say pencil. To evoke
a mand of that form, "we could make sure that no
pencil or writing instrument is available, then
hand our subject a pad of paper appropriate to
pencil sketching, and offer him a handsome reward
for a recognizable picture of a cat."2
How should we classify the offer of money for the
sketch in its evocation of the response pencil?3
An SD? Why not?
The main purpose of the 1982 paper was to provide
an analysis of what I first called an
establishing stimulus (SE), and later a
transitive conditioned establishing operation
(CEO-T).4
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between
discriminative5 and motivational functions of
stimuli. JEAB, 37, 149-155.
14
1982-1993 EO terminology was adopted to some
extent in the applied field from the 1982 paper.1
So, a new paper
Michael, J. (1993) Establishing operations. TBA,
16, 191-206. (somewhat clearer language, more
details re pain as an EO, two new learned EOs2)
McGill, P.(1999). Establishing operations
Implications for the assessment, treatment, and
prevention of problem behavior. JABA, 32,
393-418.2
Michael, J. (2000). Implications and refinements
of the EO concept. JABA, 33, 401-410.
Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., Michael, J. (2000).
Current research on the influence of EOs on
behavior in applied settings. JABA, 33, 411-428.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J.,
Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and
terms to describe them Some further refinements.
JABA, 36, 407-413.
15
(No Transcript)
16
This ends the historical introduction to the
topic, which consisted of 14 slides.
Now back to a logical and conceptual rather than
a historical development of motivation.
17
Motivating Operations
I. Definition and Characteristics A. Basic
features B. Important details

• 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

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
I. Definition and Characteristics

• 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

19
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.
20
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
21
Problems (1) EO includes estab and abolish
(2) Evocative/abative seems secondary
22
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
current frequency of any behavior that has been
rfed 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.
23
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
24
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
25
IB. Important details
I. Definition and Characteristics

• 1. What about MOs and punishment?
• 2. Direct and Indirect Effects.
• 3. Not Just Frequency.
• 4. Common Misunderstandings.
• 5. Current vs. Future EffectsEvocative/Abative
  vs. Function-Altering EffectsAntecedent vs.
  Consequence Effects
• 6. Generality depends on MO as well as stimulus
  conditions

26
1. What about MOs and punishment? Only recently
consideredmost of MO theory and knowledge
relates to MOs for rfmt. Some in a later section.
IB. Important Details

• 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.
27
4. Misunderstanding 1 Evocative/abative effect
is secondary to the value-altering effect.
IB. More Details1
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.
28
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.
29
4. Misunderstanding 2 The cognitive
interpretation
IB. More Details (still cont'd.)
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.
30
IB. More Details (finished at last)

• 5. Current vs Future Effects Evocative/Abative
  vs Function-Altering Effects Antecedents vs
  Consequents

Evocative/abative (antecedent) variables with
current effects Operant repertoire (MO
SD)-----gtR relations Respondent repertoire US or
CS-----gtUR or CR
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
31
1st. Review Basic features, important details.

• IA. Basic Features.

Brief history (Skinner, K S, Michael)
EO defining effects with examples
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
32
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
33
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.

34
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.

35
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.)

36
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.
37
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.2 Nothing.
38
II. Motivative vs. discriminative relations MO
vs. SD
2nd. Review

• 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?

39
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
40
IIIA. UMOs vs. CMOs
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).
41
IIIB. Nine main human UMOs1

1. Five deprivation and satiation UMOs food, water,
   sleep, activity, and oxygen2.
2. UMOs related to sex.
3. Two UMOs related to uncomfortable temperatures
   being too cold or too warm.
4. A UMO consisting of painful stimulation
   increase.3

42
IIIB1. Five Deprivation/Satiation UMOsfood,
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.

43
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.

44
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.

45
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.

46
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.

47
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
48
IIIB4b. More on pain as a UMO

• Skinners 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 organismpain, 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.

49
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.)
50
IIIB. Answers for Exercise 1 UMO Effects

1. Increased current frequency of all behavior that
   has facilitated going to sleep.
2. Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of water.
3. Decreased current frequency of all behavior that
   has been rfed by pain decrease (not "by pain").
4. Increased reinforcing effectiveness of
   temperature increase.
5. Pain increase does not have an abative effect.
6. Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of activity.
7. Increased current frequency of all behavior that
   has led to sexual stimulation.
8. Decreased reinforcing effectiveness of becoming
   cooler.
9. Increased current freq of all behavior that has
   reduced pain.

1. Increased reinforcing effectiveness of pain
   reduction.

51
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
52
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 procedurelet
  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 procedureR occurs
  without the punishment.

53
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)
54
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)

55
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.

56
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).

57
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
58

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

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
59
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.
60
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).
food aperture
treadle
61
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
62
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
63
1. SD and Sr in a simple operant chain

• Evocative/abative (antecedent) variables with
  current effects
• Operant repertoire (MO SD)-----gtR relations
• Respondent repertoire CS-----gtCR
• 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.)
64
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.

65
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
  directionboth 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).

66
3. Practice Exercise

• For each of the following, name the effect
  (evocative, abative, reinforcer, punisher) and
  describe it using the language of the preceding
  slide. I will give the first two.

1. The function-altering effect of pain decrease.
   (Answer Reinforcer Increases the future
   frequency of what ever behavior preceded that
   instance of pain reduction.)
2. The MO effect of returning to a comfortable
   temperature after having been too warm. (Answer
   Abative Decrease in all the behavior that has
   caused a decrease in temperature.)
3. MO effect of becoming too cold.
4. Function-altering effect of becoming too cold.
5. MO effect of water ingestion.
6. Function-altering effect of being able to sleep
   after sleep deprivation. (More on the next
   slide.)

67
3. More Practice

1. MO effect of sexual orgasm.
2. Function-altering effect of suddenly not being
   able to breathe.
3. Function-altering effect of return to a
   comfortable temperature after having been too
   cold.

1. Function altering effect of sexual orgasm.
2. MO effect of pain decrease.
3. MO effect of activity deprivation.
4. Function-altering effect of engaging in activity
   after activity deprivation.
5. MO effect of becoming too cold.
6. MO effect of oxygen deprivation.

68
4. Practical Implications.
Many behavioral interventions are chosen because
of their MO evocative or abative effects, or
because of their reinforcement or punishment
effects.
Any of these operations will have related
operations in the opposite direction. These
effects could be counter-productive and should be
understood and prepared for.
MO weakening reinforcement MO weakened to
decrease some undesirable behavior, (weaker SR
for ongoing behavior and weaker evocative
effect) food satiation to reduce food stealing,
attention satiation to reduce disruptive behavior
relevant to attention as a reinforcer. But some
behavior will be reinforced by the satiation
operation. Maybe not a problem, but could be.
(continued on next slide)
69
4. Practical Implications (cont'd.)
MO strengthening punishment MO strengthened to
increase some desirable behavior (stronger SR for
ongoing behavior plus stronger evocative effect)
food deprivation to enhance effectiveness of food
as reinforcer attention deprivation, music
deprivation, toy deprivation, etc. to increase
effectiveness of those items as reinforcers. But,
some behavior will be punished by the operation
unless deprivation onset is very slow. And even
with slow build-up deprivation effects, if they
have been systematically related to a stimulus
condition, then the presentation of that stimulus
condition will function as punishment.
70
4. Practical Implications (cont'd.)

1. Reinforcement MO weakening Food, attention,
   toys, etc. used a reinforcers to develop new
   behavior. But providing these reinforcers will
   weaken the MO, thus ongoing rfers will be less
   effective and evocative effect will be weakened.
   If reinforcers are small the effect may not be
   counter productive, as with pigeons on 24-hour
   food deprivation being reinforced with 3 seconds
   exposure to grain. However it is not clear what
   "small" means in terms of the kinds of
   reinforcers mentioned above.

71
4. Practical Implications (cont'd.)

1. Punishment MO strengthening Considering that
   most punishers used deliberately to weaken human
   behavior are stimulus conditions that have been
   related to a lower availability of various kinds
   of reinforcement, such a punishment operation
   will be like deprivation. It will result in a
   stronger Sr for ongoing behavior plus a stronger
   current frequency (stronger evocation). With a
   time-out procedure, the reinforcing effects of
   obtaining a reinforcer will be greater when one
   is obtained (perhaps by stealing) and the
   behavior that has gotten such reinforcers will be
   stronger.

72
5. Terminological Note Aversive and appetitive
stimuli.
Some environmental events have all three of the
following effects

1. MO evocative effects.
2. Punishment function-altering effects.
3. Certain respondent evocative effects heart rate
   increase, adrenal secretion, peripheral
   vasodilation, galvanic skin response, and so on,
   often called the activation syndrome).

(Continued on the next slide.)
73
5. Aversive and appetitive stimuli (cont'd.)
Such events are often referred to as aversive
stimuli, where the specific behavioral function
MO, SP or Sp, and US (unconditioned stimulus)
is not specified. This type of omnibus term is of
problematic value. In many cases it seems to be
little more than a technical translation of
mentalisms like "an unpleasant stimulus", or "I
don't like it." It can be avoided in favor of the
more specific terms (MO, SP or Sp or US) if
possible.
Appetitive stimuli has sometimes been used for
events with (a) MO abative effects,(b)
reinforcing function-altering effects, and (c)
respondent evocative effects characteristic of
happiness, affection etc. But like aversive
stimulus it is too unspecific, and happily is not
much used in behavior analysis.
74
4th. Review

• E. Multiple effects
• 1. SD and S? in a simple operant chain
• evocative/abative effects
• function-altering effects
• 2. MO evocative/abative effects SR/SP function-
  altering effects.
• 3. Practice exercises
• 4. Practical implications
• a. MO weakening reinforcement
• b. MO strengthening punishment
• c. Reinforcement MO weakening
• d. Punishment MO strengthening
• 5. Terminological Note Aversive stimuli

75
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
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations (Review of
the UMO-CMO distinction) A. Surrogate CMO
(CMO-S) B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R) C. Transitive
CMO (CMO-T)
next
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior
Analysis
76
Unconditioned vs. Conditioned MOs
UMOs are events, operations, or stimulus
conditions with unlearned reinforcer-establishing
effects. Conditioned motivating operations
(CMOs) are MOs with learned reinforcer-motivating
effects. The distinction depends solely upon
reinforcer-establishing effect an MO's
evocative/abative effect is always
learned. Humans are born with the capacity to be
reinforced by food when food deprived
(reinforcer-estab. effect), but the behavior that
gets food has to be learned. The capacity to be
reinforced by having a key, when we have to open
a locked door (reinforcer-estab. effect) depends
on our history with doors and keys. And we also
have to learn how to obtain the key (evocative
effect). (Same as slide 41.)
77
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations
Three kinds.

• Variables that alter the reinforcing
  effectiveness (value) of other stimuli, objects,
  and events but only as a result of a learning
  history can be called Conditioned Motivating
  Operations, CMOs.
• There seem to be three kinds of CMOs
• Surrogate CMO-S
• Reflexive CMO-R
• Transitive CMO-T

78
IVA. Surrogate CMO (CMO-S)
1. Description a. Pairing The pairing of stimuli
develops the respondent CS, and the operant
Sr, and Sp, and possibly the SD. Maybe
also an MO, by pairing with another MO. Such a
CMO will be called a surrogate CMO, a CMO-S. It
would have the same reinforcer-establishing
effect and the same evocative effect as
that of the MO it had been paired with.
Example A stimulus paired with the UMO of
being too cold might 1) increase the
effectiveness of warmth as a reinforcer,
and 2) evoke behavior that had been so
reinforced more than needed for the actual
temperature. b. Evidence for such a CMO is not
strong. Also it would not have good survival
value, still evolution does not always work
perfectly.
79
IVA1. CMO-S (cont'd.)
c. Emotional MOs With sexual motivation, MOs for
aggressive behavior, and the other
emotional MOs, the issue has not been
addressed in terms specific to the CMO,
because its distinction from CS, Sr, and Sp
has not been previously emphasized. The surrogate
CMO is only just beginning to be considered
within applied behavior analysis (see
McGill, 1999, p.396), but its effects could
be quite prevalent. d. Practical importance From
a practical perspective, it may be helpful
to consider the possibility of this type of
CMO when trying to understand the origin of
some puzzling or especially irrational behavior.
2. Weakening the effects of the CMO-S Any
relation developed by pairing can be weakened by
the two forms of unpairing1. The stimulus that
had been paired with being too cold would weaken
if it occurred repeatedly in normal temperature,
or if one was too cold as often in the absence as
in the presence of the stimulus.
80
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
IV. Conditioned Motivating Operations (Review of
the UMO-CMO distinction) A. Surrogate CMO
(CMO-S) B. Reflexive CMO (CMO-R) C. Transitive
CMO (CMO-T)
next
V. General Implications of MOs for Behavior
Analysis
81
IVB. Reflexive CMO

• Description
• Escape and avoidance
• Escape extinction
• Avoidance CMO-R defined
• Avoidance extinction
• Avoidance misconceptions
• Human Examples
• Ordinary social interactions
• Academic demand situation

82
IVB1. CMO-R Description a. Escape-Avoidance

• The warning stimulus in an avoidance procedure.
• Animal lab escape-avoidance as a box diagram.

Escape What evokes R2? The shock onset. What is
rfer for R2? Shock termination. How should the
evocative relation be named? Is shock onset an SD
for R2? No, because S? condition is defectiveno
MO for rfmt consisting of shock termination when
shock is not on. (What is wanted? Nothing.) Shock
is a UMO (recall earlier section on MO vs. SD,
and pain as UMO.
83
IVB1. CMO-R b. Escape Extinction

• Animal lab escape-avoidance procedure as a
  diagram.

How can R2 be reduced or prevented? What would
extinction of R2 consist of? Extinction R
occurs w/o SR. Remove R2 contingency (shown
dimmed) from the diagramnot an actual lab
procedure. In general, to extinguish escape
behavior the rsp must not escape the later
worsening. How else to prevent R2? Omit shock,
but this is only temporaryevocative, not
function-altering.
84
IVB1. CMO-R c. Avoidance Definition
What evokes R1? Onset of the warning stimulus
(tone). What reinforces R1? Avoiding the shock?
No, terminating the tone. How should the
evocative relation be named? Is tone onset an SD
for R1? No, because the S? condition is
defectiveno MO for rfmt consisting of tone
termination when tone is not on. (What is wanted?
Nothing.) Tone is a CMO-R. (Why not a
UMO?) CMO-R Any stimulus that has systematically
preceded the onset of any avoidable worsening.
85
IVB1. CMO-R d. Avoidance Extinction

• How can R1 be weakened or prevented?
• Evocative weakening Leave tone off. But only
  temporary. When tone next comes on R will occur.
• Function-altering weakening True Extinction R1
  Remove R1 contingency (dimmed out). R1 occurs,
  tone stays on and shock occurs when it would have
  if R1 had not occurred. Result Reduction in R
  frequency will take place at a usual rate for
  extinction.

86
IVB1. CMO-R e. Avoidance Misconceptions

• Widespread misconceptions about avoidance
• 1st. Misconception Rfmt for R1 is not getting
  the shock. Wrong Too long-range and a nonevent.
  Rfmt for R is termination of the warning S.
• 2nd. Misconception To extinguish R1, when R
  fails to occur omit shock and return to the
  beginning. Wrong Leave warning S on when R
  occurs and give shock when it is due. This error
  is based on the previous one. Omitting shock will
  lead to reduction of R1 frequency, but should not
  be called extinction. This procedure is shown on
  the next slide.

87
IVB1. CMO-R e. Misconceptions (cont'd.)
30"
5"
tone off shock off
tone on shock off
R1
omitting shock
R1 lever press, the avoidance rsp.

• Wide