Rethinking motivating operations: A reply to commentaries on Edwards, Lotfizadeh, and Poling (2019)

What Can We Learn by Treating Perspective Taking as Problem Solving?

Perspective taking has been studied extensively using a wide variety of experimental tasks. The theoretical constructs that are used to develop these tasks and interpret the results obtained from them, most notably theory of mind (ToM), have conceptual shortcomings from a behavior-analytic perspective. The behavioral approach to conceptualizing and studying this class of behavior is parsimonious and pragmatic, but the body of relevant research is currently small. The prominent relational frame theory (RFT) approach to derived perspective taking asserts that "deictic framing" is a core component of this class of behavior, but this proposal also appears to be conceptually problematic. We suggest that in many cases perspective taking is problem solving; when successful, both classes of behavior involve the emission of context-appropriate precurrent behavior that facilitates the appropriate response (i.e., the "solution"). Conceptualizing perspective taking in this way appears to have many advantages, which we explore herein.

Motivating Operations and Negative Reinforcement

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.

Motivating Operations and Discriminative Stimuli: Distinguishable but Interactive Variables

The motivating operations concept has been of considerable interest and practical value to behavior analysts, including practitioners. Nonetheless, the concept has generated substantial controversy and has significant limitations. To address some of these limitations, we suggest that it would be wise to redefine motivating operations, to deemphasize the importance that has historically been placed on subtypes of conditioned motivating operations, to emphasize how motivating operations and discriminative stimuli interact, and to further examine the kinds of environmental changes that alter the reinforcing value of particular kinds of stimuli. These suggestions are detailed elsewhere and summarized in this article.