Abstract
This paper reviews the current status of the Motivating Operation Concept (MOC), followed by a critical response to Whelan and D. Barnes-Holmes (2010), who argued against the MOC and proposed an alternative analysis of motivation, the Consequence-Valuing Operation (CVO). In this paper, we: (a) review the MOC and discuss its conceptual and empirical status, (b) clarify certain aspects of the MOC, (c) correct Whelan and D. Barnes-Holmes’s inaccurate descriptions of the MOC, and (d) critique the CVO and related concepts. We demonstrate that the MOC is a high-impact innovation in behavior analysis that provides a useful theoretical framework for analyses of operant (instrumental) behavior. In contrast, the case made by Whelan and D. Barnes-Holmes for the competing CVO concept suffers from a range of problems. We, therefore, conclude that the MOC provides a superior and more useful behavioral analysis of motivation.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 601-623 |
Number of pages | 23 |
Journal | Psychological Record |
Volume | 64 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Aug 5 2014 |
Keywords
- Abative effect
- Abolishing operations
- Conditioned motivating operations
- Consequence valuing operations
- Establishing operations
- Evocative effect
- Motivating operations
- Motivation
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Psychology(all)