The Motivating Operations Concept

Current Status and Critical Response

Sean Laraway, Susan Snycerski, Ryan Olson, Bernd Becker, Alan Poling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)601-623
Number of pages23
JournalPsychological Record
Volume64
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 5 2014

Fingerprint

Behavior Analysis
Theoretical Framework
Innovation

Keywords

  • Abative effect
  • Abolishing operations
  • Conditioned motivating operations
  • Consequence valuing operations
  • Establishing operations
  • Evocative effect
  • Motivating operations
  • Motivation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

The Motivating Operations Concept : Current Status and Critical Response. / Laraway, Sean; Snycerski, Susan; Olson, Ryan; Becker, Bernd; Poling, Alan.

In: Psychological Record, Vol. 64, No. 3, 05.08.2014, p. 601-623.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Laraway, Sean ; Snycerski, Susan ; Olson, Ryan ; Becker, Bernd ; Poling, Alan. / The Motivating Operations Concept : Current Status and Critical Response. In: Psychological Record. 2014 ; Vol. 64, No. 3. pp. 601-623.
@article{e198882308e74e32b2ca731687769da3,
title = "The Motivating Operations Concept: Current Status and Critical Response",
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.",
keywords = "Abative effect, Abolishing operations, Conditioned motivating operations, Consequence valuing operations, Establishing operations, Evocative effect, Motivating operations, Motivation",
author = "Sean Laraway and Susan Snycerski and Ryan Olson and Bernd Becker and Alan Poling",
year = "2014",
month = "8",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1007/s40732-014-0080-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "601--623",
journal = "Psychological Record",
issn = "0033-2933",
publisher = "Psychological Record",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Motivating Operations Concept

T2 - Current Status and Critical Response

AU - Laraway, Sean

AU - Snycerski, Susan

AU - Olson, Ryan

AU - Becker, Bernd

AU - Poling, Alan

PY - 2014/8/5

Y1 - 2014/8/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Abative effect

KW - Abolishing operations

KW - Conditioned motivating operations

KW - Consequence valuing operations

KW - Establishing operations

KW - Evocative effect

KW - Motivating operations

KW - Motivation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84919627461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84919627461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40732-014-0080-5

DO - 10.1007/s40732-014-0080-5

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 601

EP - 623

JO - Psychological Record

JF - Psychological Record

SN - 0033-2933

IS - 3

ER -