Transcript A Behavioural Approach to Language Assessment and

Skinner’s Analysis of Motivation:
Ten Applications for
Improving Autism Treatment
Mark L. Sundberg, Ph.D., BCBA-D
(www.marksundberg.com)
Motivation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation is a major topic in psychology, especially applied
psychology
A Google search of “motivation” produced 257 million hits
42 million for “reinforcement”
7 million for “stimulus control”
97,000 for discriminative stimulus (SD)
Behaviorists are rarely credited for any positive contribution to the
study of motivation
In fact, discussions of behavioral approaches to motivation are usually
misguided and pejorative (e.g., Dan Pink’s TED presentation, SonRise vs. ABA)
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation
•
•
•
•
•
An often missed element of Skinnerian psychology is that
motivational control is an antecedent variable that is different from
stimulus control and reinforcement (Skinner, 1938, 1953, 1957)
In Behavior of Organisms (Skinner, 1938) Skinner devoted two full
chapters to motivation; Chapter 9 titled “Drive” and Chapter 10 titled
“Drive and Conditioning: The Interaction of Two Variables”
Science and Human Behavior (1953) had three chapters on motivation
Keller and Schoenfeld (1950) stated, “A drive [motivation] is not a
stimulus…a drive has neither the status, nor the functions, nor the
place in a reflex [behavior] that a stimulus has…it is not, in itself
either eliciting, reinforcing, or discriminative” (p. 276)
Keller and Schoenfeld suggested the term “establishing operation” be
used for “drive” to distinguish it from the various types of stimuli
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation
•
•
•
•
•
The study of motivation was not carried through to Applied Behavior
Analysis in the 1960s, 70s, & 80s
Michael (1993) pointed out, “In applied behavior analysis the concept
of reinforcement seems to have taken over much of the subject matter
that was once considered a part of the topic of motivation” (p. 191)
Applied research on motivation is virtually nonexistent in the first 20
years of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA)
The Journal contained no entries for “establishing operations” or
“motivation” in the first cumulative index (1968-1978)
During the next 10 years (1979-1988) there were still no entries for
“establishing operation.” However, there were 5 entries for
“motivation,” but they all involved motivation as a consequence,
rather than as an antecedent variable
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation
•
•
•
In addition, the experimental analysis of motivation is mostly absent
from the 57 years of research in the Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior (JEAB)
Michael (1993) noted that “the basic notion [MO] plays only a small
role in the approach currently identified as behavior analysis” (p. 191)
But most importantly, the neglect of motivation “leaves a gap in our
understanding of operant functional relations” (Michael, 1993, p. 191)
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation
•
•
Skinner discussed the topic of motivation in every chapter of the book
Verbal Behavior (1957), usually with his preferred terminology of
“deprivation, satiation, and aversive stimulation”
“Thirty points about motivation from Skinner’s book Verbal
Behavior” (Sundberg, 2013)
Thirty Points About Motivation from
Skinner’s Book
Verbal Behavior (Sundberg, 2013)
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation
•
•
•
•
Skinner discussed the topic of motivation in every chapter of the book
Verbal Behavior (1957), usually with his preferred terminology of
“deprivation, satiation, and aversive stimulation”
“Thirty points about motivation from Skinner’s book Verbal
Behavior” (Sundberg, 2013)
Jack Michael and colleagues have published various refinements and
extensions of Skinner’s analysis (Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, &
Poling, 2003; Michael, 1982, 1988, 1993, 2000, 2004, 2007)
“Discriminative variables (SDs) are related to the differential
availability of an effective form of reinforcement given a particular
type of behavior; motivative variables are related to the differential
reinforcing effectiveness of environmental events’’ (Michael, 1993 p.
193) (see also Michael, 1982)
Establishing Operations
(Michael, 1993)
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation, in lay terms, is often talked about as wanting or needing
things or events
For example, food deprivation
There are two behavioral effects involved
1) the value of food becomes stronger
2) food seeking behaviors are evoked
Or, being highly motivated to search the internet for Club Penguin
Two behavioral effects
1) the value of a computer and a website address becomes stronger
2) web searching behaviors are evoked
When values are low (satiation, or website found) behavior is abated
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation:
Michael’s (2007) Framework
•
•
•
•
•
An increase in the value of food or a website url is termed an
establishing operation (EO) while a decrease in the value is termed
an abolishing operation (AO)
The term motivating operations (MOs) is an omnibus term for these
value changing effects (EOs and AOs)
The value changes then in turn affect behavior (value-altering effect)
EOs evoke specific behaviors, AOs abate specific behaviors
(behavior-altering effect)
Michael’s definition of motivation: “any environmental variable that
(a) alters the effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event as a
reinforcer and (b) alters the current frequency of all behavior that has
been reinforced by that stimulus, object, or event” (2007, p. 375)
Michael’s Chapter on Motivating Operations
in Cooper et al. (2007)
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation:
Summary
•
•
•
•
MOs constitute a separate basic principle of behavior
MOs are antecedent events, not consequences
All types of MOs are separate from stimulus control
MOs and SDs frequently occur together as forms of “multiple control”
The Basic Principles of
Operant Behavior
Stimulus Control (SD)
Motivating Operation (MO)
Response
Reinforcement
Punishment
Extinction
Conditioned reinforcement
Conditioned punishment
Intermittent reinforcement
A Behavioral Analysis of Motivation:
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All types of MOs are separate from, but related to, reinforcement
MOs effects are separate from schedules of reinforcement effects
Aversive stimulation can function as MOs
Aversive stimulation as an antecedent (an MO) is different from
aversive stimulation as a consequence (punishment)
Escape and avoidance are MO effects, not SD effects
MOs may involve unconditioned or conditioned variables
A single MO can control large repertoires (e.g., revenge)
MOs are typically private events
Collateral behavior can help to determine MO level (e.g., reaching)
Much of what is termed “emotion” involves MOs (S&HB, chap. 10)
The Application of Establishing Operations
(Sundberg, 1993)
Application 1: MOs as Antecedents Provide
an Additional Tool for
Assessment and Intervention
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MOs play a significant role in multiple facets of the assessment and
intervention process for children with autism
MOs can be manipulated as an independent variable (like
reinforcement, SDs, schedules, etc.)
MOs in relation to language acquisition and academics (e.g., math)
MOs in relation to social behavior (e.g., peer interaction)
MOs in relation to problem behaviors (e.g., aggression)
MOs in relation to learning barriers (e.g., scrolling in manding)
MOs in relation to group skills (e.g., aversive events evoke escape)
MOs in relation to self-help skills (e.g., clean hands)
MOs in relation to nonverbal skills (e.g., fine motor)
Application 2: MOs as the Primary
Antecedents for Manding
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All mands are controlled by motivating operations (MOs)
There must be an MO at strength to conduct mand training
MOs vary in strength across time, and the effects may be temporary
MOs must be either captured or created to conduct mand training
MOs may have an instant or gradual onset or offset
Instructors must be able to reduce existing negative behavior
controlled by MOs
Instructors must be able to identify the presence and strength of
MOs, and capitalize upon them for teaching opportunities
Instructors must know how to bring verbal behavior under the
control of MOs
Application 3: Demand can Weaken a
Motivating Operation (MO)
•
•
•
•
•
There is a direct relation between the value (MO) of a reinforcer and
how much work (response effort) is required to obtain that
reinforcement (e.g., Alling & Poling, 1994)
Too much of a work demand can reduce the strength of an MO
An iPad may be reinforcing if it is noncontingent, but less so if work
is required
Don’t be dependent on rfmt. surveys and preference assessments
Sitting, attending, and responding to task demands can be quite a high
response requirement for some children (video: Julian)
Application 3: Demand can Weaken a
Motivating Operation (MO)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There is a direct relation between the value (MO) of a reinforcer and
how much work (response effort) is required to obtain that
reinforcement (e.g., Alling & Poling, 1994)
Too much of a work demand can reduce the strength of an MO
An iPad may be reinforcing if it is noncontingent, but less so if work
is required
Don’t be dependent on rfmt. surveys and preference assessments
Sitting, attending, and responding to task demands can be quite a high
response requirement for some children (video: Julian)
Staff must anticipate and account for MO value changes
Many intervention strategies are available, for example:
•
•
•
identify the conditions under which a change is observed
start with a low response requirement and high MO value
gradually increase the response requirement
Application 4: Aversive MOs
as Antecedents
• Learned aversive motivators are ubiquitous in everyday behavior
• We all encounter bad/undesirable things and events we don’t want
• Aversive stimuli increase the value of their termination and evoke
behaviors that terminate the stimuli through negative reinforcement
• Michael terms these “conditioned motivating operations reflexive”
(CMO-R)
CMO-R
Demand

Increased value
of termination

Student wants
to get away


Evokes escapeavoidance behavior
Tantrum, push
materials to floor

Remove aversive
“negative rfmt.”

Task delayed
or removed
“negative rfmt.”
Application 4: Aversive MOs
as Antecedents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adults, tasks, settings, demand, tone of voice, body movements,
contexts, materials, problems, etc. can function as aversive MOs
Possible CEO-R presence in DTT
Teaching children how to handle or remove aversives appropriately
Do not let the negative behavior delay or remove the aversive stimulus
Do a curriculum analysis, mitigate the aversive, decrease the response
effort
Increase the reinforcement for responding when aversive MO is
present
Do not offer reinforcers following negative behaviors (“remember
what you’re working for”)
Application 4: Aversive MOs as
Antecedents
Application 5: MOs can Compete
With Each Other, and Block or
Distort Stimulus Control
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
One MO can be more powerful than another MO (e.g., a stim. toy vs.
social approval)
MOs are sometimes so powerful they overpower SDs (blocking)
(e.g., iPad, string, “He does not listen to me”)
MOs can distort SDs (e.g., lying, exaggeration) (Brian Williams)
Be aware of a student’s strong MOs and possible effects on him
Be aware that table-top teaching may not adequately reflect an
environment where there are competing MOs
Systematically require SD responding when the competing EO is
present (may be easiest to start with a relatively weak EO)
Be aware that NET may inadvertently cater to powerful MOs
Control MOs, don’t let them control you
Application 6: Using MOs to help Establish
Other Skills (Multiple control)
•
•
•
•
•
•
We often learn new skills because of some MO to do so (e.g., new
Lego set, new game, navigation system)
Incorporating MOs along with SDs and reinforcement can enhance
skill acquisition (e.g., Carroll & Hesse, 1987)
Learning to tact things a student is interested in
Learning intraverbals about favorite topics
Reading and writing about favorite topics
MOs can help establish nonverbal skills as well (e.g., fine and gross
motor skills, grooming skills)
Application 7: Breaking Free from MO
Control by Using Generalized
Conditioned Reinforcement
•
•
•
•
•
MO control can get to be too strong (e.g., iPad, dinosaurs, OCD)
“generalized reinforcement destroys the possibility of control via
specific deprivations.” (Skinner, 1957, p. 212)
“we weaken the relation to any specific deprivation or aversive
stimulation and set up a unique relation to a discriminative stimulus.
We do this by reinforcing the response as consistently as possible in
the presence of one stimulus with many different reinforcers or with a
generalized reinforcer. The resulting control is through the stimulus.”
(Skinner, 1957, p. 84)
Moving a mand to a tact or intraverbal through generalized
reinforcement
Also, use pictures, satiation, and competing MOs, low demand
Application 8: Developing or
Repairing Social Skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
Weak EOs for social interaction are a problem for many with autism
(e.g., may not attend to peers or their interests)
Negative behaviors may occur as barriers (e.g., excessive manding,
irrelevant IVs, verbal perseveration, weak listener repertoires)
There are many complicated behavioral repertoires that fall under the
rubric of “social behavior”
Create MOs for verbal behavior with peers (e.g., manding to peers)
Create MOs for nonverbal behavior with peers (e.g., games, activities)
Identify and amelioriate problematic CEO-Rs (e.g., avoiding peers)
Application 9: Developing or Repairing
Self-help Skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Distinction between structural and functional self-help skills
Why do you brush your teeth, shower, or carefully select clothing?
The MOs that control your behaviors may have little effect on
teenagers with autism
MOs related to avoiding the social punishment of having body odor
or bad breath
MOs related to positive social reinforcement for a stylish look
Creating MOs and assuring that target behaviors are under MO
control rather than solely under the control of SDs
Set up a play-date, meeting, event, contest, game, etc.
Establish and link MOs to a self-checklist
Use MOs to identify potential vocational directions
Use MOs to teach community living skills
Application 10: Asking QuestionsMands for Information
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Asking a question is usually a mand, thus the source of control must
be an MO
The MO for information (verbal or nonverbal) must be the primary
source of control (MOask AOdon’t ask)
The consequence must be the information, not edibles, tokens, etc.
Questions are not developmentally appropriate until approximately a
two-year linguistic level
Must create or capture an EO (e.g., missing toy)
Use prompts (e.g., echoic, textual), fade prompts (e.g., Where’s Elmo)
Reinforcement for asking questions must be the information that
corresponds with the EO (location of the toy)
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
Motivation is an extremely important aspect of human behavior
Behavior analysis has a powerful formulation of motivation that
has not been developed much in ABA
There is a tremendous need for empirical research on the
application of the MO to work with children with autism
The applications to the treatment of children with autism are
abundant, but it is up to us to develop them
THANK YOU!
www.AVBPress.com