Beyond the EO Thursday, April 6, 2006

10:45 to 11:45 A.M.

Jack Michael, Ph.D.

Emeritus Professor Psychology Department Western Michigan University email: [email protected]

website: jackmichael.org

phone: (269) 372-3075. FAX: (269) 372-3096 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.

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.

"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 2

Drive and the EO

Keller 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

refer to

any **

(

EO

) can be used to 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?) 3

Two Defining Effects

1. Reinforcer Establishing Effect: Increases (but also decreases) the current reinforcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event.

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

Here is a better arrangement but it has some problems.

4

Establishing Operations

: Two Defining Effects A. Rfer Establishing Effect 1. Rfer Establishing Effect: An Increase in Rfing Effectiveness 2. Rfer Abolishing Effect: A Decrease in Rfing Effectiveness B. Evocative Effect 1. An increase in the Current Frequency of the Relevant Behavior: Behavior is Evoked 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.

5

Motivating

Operations

(MOs): Two Defining Effects Value-Altering Effect Behavior-Altering Effect

MOs alter the current reinforcing effectiveness of some S, object, or event. Reinforcer Establishing Effect: An increase in reinforcing effectiveness.

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. Reinforcer Abolishing Effect: A decrease in reinforcing effectiveness.

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

Easier to learn and easier to apply.

6

Motivating Operations: Food Example

Reinforcer 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.

7

Motivating Operations: Pain Example

Reinforcer 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.

8

Additional Issues

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 S D ). b) MO alters evocative strength of relevant S D s.

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

3. Not just frequency: Also

magnitude latency

(more or less forceful R), (shorter or longer time from MO or S D to R),

relative frequency

(R occurrences per response opportunity), & others.

9

A Possible Misunderstanding

That 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.) 10

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). 11

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.

A Behavioral Interpretation

Reinforcement automatically adds the reinforced behavior to the repertoire that will be evoked or abated by the relevant MO. Punishment and extinction automatically subtract the punished or extinguished behavior from the repertoire that will be evoked or abated by the relevant MO. 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. 12

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. (S D + 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.) 13

Motivative vs. Discriminative Relations, MO vs. S

D

A. The General Contrast

Both MOs and S D s are learned, operant, antecedent, evocative/abative relations.

But S D s 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

. 14

S

D

:

Increasingly Precise Definition

"An S D (discriminative stimulus) is a type of S that evokes a type of R." [But so does the respondent CS (conditioned stimulus)].

"An S D 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 S D evokes its R because it has been reinforced in the S D and has occurred w/o rfmt. in S ∆ ."

But

now another assumption must be made explicit.

15

S

D

: MO in S

∆

condition

"An S D evokes its R because it has been reinforced in the S D 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 S D be in effect during S ∆ . must also (*With ordinary lab procedure, S ∆ w/o MO not thought of.) In everyday language: To develop control by an S D the organism must have wanted something in the S D , responded, and obtained it; and must have wanted it in the S ∆ , responded, and did not obtain it: Success in S D and failure in S ∆ . Failing to obtain something that was not wanted is not failure.

16

How about food deprivation as a possible S

D?

Two S D requirements: (1) R has been reinforced with food in S D 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

obtained. (2) What was

wanted

in the S ∆ in the S D condition, and 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 S D but easily meets the two MO requirements. 17

How About Pain Onset as an S

D

?

Two S D requirements: (1) R has been reinforced with pain reduction in S D (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

condition, and obtained. (2) What was

wanted

in the S D 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 S D but easily meets the two MO requirements. 18

UMOs vs CMOs

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.) Elaborate a little on UMOs and CMOs if time permits.

19

(Use if time permits.)

Main Human UMOs

1. Five deprivation/satiation UMOs 2. UMOs related to sex 3. Temperature UMOs 4. Painful stimuli as UMOs 20

(Use if time permits.)

Weakening the Effects of UMOs

For 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?) 21

(Use if time permits.)

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. 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 (S P ) 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).

(*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.) 22

(Use if time permits)

MOs for Punishment (cont'd.)

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.)

Social disapproval

as a punisher (frown, head shake, "bad!") may work because of being paired with S P like painful stimulation, so MO would be the MO for the relevant S P . 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. 23

(Use if time permits)

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. 24

(Use if time permits)

CMO-R: Human Examples

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 S D --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. So the request is an S D . 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.

25

(Use if time permits) Human Examples (cont'd.) "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." What evokes the thanking rsp, and what is its rfmt? 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 S D in the presence of which a "Thanks" response can receive a "You're welcome." 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. 26

(Use if time permits) Human Examples: Academic Demand 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

S D s 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.

27

(Use if time permits)

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 the availability of the S,

but to its value

.

not

related to 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 S D for behavior that has obtained a flashlight. But are flashlights more available in the dark? No. They are more valuable. 28

(Use if time permits)

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 S D 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 S D .

There

are

S D s involved in this situation. The screw

is

an S D for appropriate unscrewing motions. The request is also dependent upon the availability of the assistant as an S D . But it is a CMO-T for the request. 29

(Use if time permits)

CMO-T: A danger stimulus

A 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 S D 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 S D qualify as an S ∆ . It is defective in two ways: The relevant rfmt is just as available in the S ∆ as in the S D ; and there is no MO for the rfmt in the S ∆ because the absence of the stimulus does not condition–nothing is wanted.

The other guard's phone ringing

is

an S D 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. 30

(Use if time permits) 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. 31

(Use if time permits)

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 S r . 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. 32

(Use if time permits) Practical implications of CMO-T vs. S D interpretations A CMO-T is a stimulus that evokes behavior because of its relation to the

value

of a consequence; the S D 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.

33

(Use if time permits) 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. 34

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 Department Western Michigan University email: [email protected]

website: jackmichael.org

phone: (269) 372-3075 fax: (269) 372-3096 35

36