Incorporating "motivation" into the functional analysis of challenging behavior: on the interactive and integrative potential of the motivating operation.
Build your FA around measurable MOs instead of mentalistic "sensitivity" labels.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Paul and colleagues wrote a theory paper. They asked: why does the same client hit on Tuesday but not on Thursday?
Instead of saying the child is "sensitive to attention," they built the FA around motivating operations. MOs are things like skipped breakfast, lost sleep, or a new staff face that suddenly make attention or escape more powerful.
They showed how to plug MOs into every FA condition so the data tell you what changed, not what trait the child owns.
What they found
The paper does not give new numbers. It gives a new map.
Map rule: if problem behavior jumps, first look for an MO shift, not a hidden "sensitivity." Frame the hypothesis in things you can measure and change right away.
How this fits with other research
Killeen (1995) already modeled how skipped meals or extra sleep change response rates. Paul et al. lift those math rules into FA design.
Lord et al. (1986) warned us to drop mentalistic words like "self-reinforcement." Paul extends the same warning to "sensitivity" talk in FA reports.
Critchfield (1996) argued we should test mentalistic terms as verbal behavior. Paul answers by testing "sensitivity" against MO data in the clinic.
Why it matters
Next time you write an FA, list the MOs first. Note sleep, illness, med changes, staff turnover. Build those into your conditions. When the data swing, you will point to an environmental change, not a vague trait. Your treatment plan then becomes simple: remove or add the MO, and teach a replacement that gets the same reinforcer.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add an MO checklist to your next FA protocol—track sleep, meals, meds, and staff changes before each session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Sensitivity theory attempts to account for the variability often observed in challenging behavior by recourse to the "aberrant motivation" of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In this article, we suggest that a functional analysis based on environmental (challenging environments) and biological (challenging needs) motivating operations provides a more parsimonious and empirically grounded account of challenging behavior than that proposed by sensitivity theory. It is argued that the concept of the motivating operation provides a means of integrating diverse strands of research without the undue inference of mentalistic constructs. An integrated model of challenging behavior is proposed, one that remains compatible with the central tenets of functional analysis.
Behavior modification, 2007 · doi:10.1177/0145445506298424