Motivating Operations and Negative Reinforcement
Drop the reflexive MO story—escape works because it ends something, not because a mystical MO made the person flee.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Edwards and colleagues wrote a theory paper. They looked at how we explain escape and avoidance.
The authors say we blame "conditioned motivating operations" too fast. They want us to check real learning history instead.
What they found
The paper finds no proof that a special MO triggers escape. What matters is the past payoff: did leaving the task stop the aversive event?
In short, the reinforcer is stimulus termination, not a hidden MO inside the child.
How this fits with other research
Winett et al. (1991) showed kids learned faster when error trials ended with escape or extra practice. That study treated escape as a clear reinforcer, not as a reflex caused by an MO.
Reiss et al. (1993) argued psychiatric labels miss the real brain-behavior link. Edwards makes the same move: skip the fancy label (conditioned MO) and look at the actual contingency.
Fisher et al. (2004) claimed autism is learned verbal behavior, not fixed brain fate. Edwards echoes the theme: behavior flows from contingencies, not from assumed internal states.
Why it matters
Next time you write a plan, ask: "What exactly stops when the client leaves?" State the stimulus that ends, not "MO present." This small shift keeps your treatment notes clearer, your supervision tighter, and your interventions matched to real environmental payoffs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →In your next FBA, replace the line "conditioned MO for escape" with the exact stimulus that turns off when the client leaves.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The motivating operations concept has improved the precision of our approach to analyzing behavior; it serves as a framework for classifying events that alter the reinforcing and punishing effectiveness of other events. Nevertheless, some aspects of the concept are seriously flawed, thereby limiting its utility. We contend in this article that the emphasis it places on the onset of some stimuli (putative motivating operations) making their offset a reinforcer in the absence of a learning history (i.e., in the case of unconditioned motivating operations), or because of such a history (i.e., in the case of reflexive conditioned motivating operations), is of no value in predicting or controlling behavior. It is unfortunate that this pseudo-analysis has been widely accepted, which has drawn attention away from actual motivating operations that are relevant to negative reinforcement, and led to conceptually flawed explanations of challenging human behaviors that are escape-maintained. When used appropriately, the motivating operations concept can help to clarify the conditions under which a stimulus change (in particular, stimulus termination) will function as a negative reinforcer. From both a theoretical and a practical perspective, rethinking the application of the motivating operations concept to negative reinforcement is advantageous. Herein, we explore the implications of doing so with the aim of encouraging relevant research and improving the practice of applied behavior analysis.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s40614-020-00266-8