Establishing terms: A commentary on Edwards, Lotfizadeh & Poling's “Motivating operations and stimulus control”
One matched word pair—evocative/abative—can end student confusion over mixed MO labels.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Catania and colleagues wrote a short commentary. They looked at a paper by Edwards, Lotfizadeh & Poling that suggested new names for motivating operations.
The team asked one question: can simpler, matched words help students stop mixing up MO effects with stimulus control?
What they found
They agreed with Edwards et al. Using the pair "evocative" and "abative" for all MO effects keeps labels consistent.
Students no longer have to switch between "establishing," "abolishing," "evocative," and "suppressive." One pair does the job.
How this fits with other research
Swaim et al. (2001) made a similar move. They swapped "reinforcement/punishment" for "selection/deselection" so evolutionary scientists could follow our talk. Both papers show that a small word change can open doors to other fields.
Cole (1994) used plain-language philosophy to clean up Skinner’s verbal behavior terms. Catania et al. use the same tool—conceptual analysis—to tidy MO talk for the classroom.
Farrant et al. (1998) wanted whole courses rebuilt around clear concepts. The new MO labels are a quick win within that same goal: make learning easier.
Why it matters
Next time you teach MOs, pick one clean pair: evocative when behavior goes up, abative when it goes down. Your students will mix up fewer terms and spot MO effects faster in case videos.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Post a mini-chart: EVOCATIVE = MO makes behavior stronger, ABATIVE = MO makes behavior weaker; use only these words in your next lesson.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This commentary supports the arguments advanced in Edwards, Lotfizadeh and Poling's "Motivating Operations and Stimulus Control" by considering the issues raised by terminologies that apply the same terms to both operations and their outcomes (e.g., reinforcement as a name for a procedure and as a name for the change in behavior it produces) and those raised by polar terminologies that apply asymmetrical terms to the introduction of procedures and to their removal (e.g., establishing for initiating motivational operations and abolishing rather than disestablishing for terminating them, and evocative versus abative for the respective effects of these operations). The terminology of reinforcement versus extinction provides precedent for such asymmetries, but the proliferation of variations on names for behavior that either increases or decreases creates pedagogical problems. Edwards et al. have proposed simplifications that may ameliorate these complications.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2019 · doi:10.1002/jeab.537