Motivating operations and stimulus control

Edwards et al. (2019) rewrote the definition of motivating operations. They said an MO changes both how much a reinforcer is worth and how stimuli control behavior.

The paper drops the old split between behavior-altering and function-altering effects. Instead, it treats all MO effects as shifts in stimulus control.

This is a theory piece, so there are no new data. The value is in the new definition itself.

The authors claim the new view makes functional analyses cleaner and easier to use.

Poling et al. (2020) picked up the idea one year later. They kept the MO–stimulus-control link and added the term "MO–SD interaction."

O'Reilly et al. (2008) showed the practical side. They gave kids a quick free taste of the reinforcer that usually maintains problem behavior. Problem behavior dropped during the next play period. This real-life test fits the new theory: prior access is an abolishing operation that changes both value and stimulus control.

King et al. (2025) gave lab proof. They found that the discriminative features of reinforcers alter resurgence. This supports the paper’s claim that stimulus control belongs inside the MO concept.

Stop asking "Is this an EO or an AO?" Ask "How is this event shifting both reinforcer value and stimulus control?" When you write a functional analysis, list the MOs that tune the power of rewards and the cues that signal them. Try adding a brief "free taste" of the maintaining reinforcer before play sessions and watch problem behavior fall. The new language keeps your treatment plans simple and consistent.