21.04.2016
Silje Haugland
University of Agder
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Motivational operations: Environmental events, operations,
or stimulus conditions that affect an organism’s behavior
by altering (a) the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of
other environmental events and (b) the frequency of
occurrence of that part of the organism’s repertoire
relevant to those events as consequences (Laraway et. al.
2003)
 Motivation
 Grand
Motivation is an internal state or condition (sometimes
described as a need, desire, or want) that serves to
activate or energize behavior and give it direction
(Kleinginna and Kleinginna, 1981)
theories vs. mini-theories
 Combinations
of perspectives – behavioral,
neurological (brain activity), physiological,
cognitive, social-cognitive, cultural,
evolutionary, psychoanalytical
(Reeve, 2009)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
NEED
MO
Stimulus
Physiological
needs (Hull,
1943)
Hunger, sex,
thirst, sleep,
temperature.
No food intake
for 12 hours
Food
Psychological
needs
Autonomy,
competence,
relatedness
Stayed alone in
the room all
evening
Sight of other
person in the
same room
Social needs
Achievement,
intimacy,
power
Another person Other people
is not following jumping when
your instruction you say “jump”
“They arise from the individual`s personal
experiences and unique developmental,
cognitive and socialization histories” (Reeve,
2009. p. 200)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
 “1-
man`s mind design” (Maslow)
 N=6000
– psychometric testing (Reiss, 2002)
 Self-reporting
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016

We can easily operationalize the needs into stimuli that can
function as reinforcers

We have two possibilities – guess ourselves (based on no data)
versus guess based on some data

The corrective in applied analysis is to monitor the effects – all
decisions are guesses or hypothesis about lawfulness in future
events – only data will show (see Sidman, 2011)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
The data are interpreted using behavioral
principles but the theory is rejected?
The theory and the data are accepted?
The theory is rejected and the data are
rejected????
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
The errors which
arise from the
absence of facts are
far more numerous
and more durable
than those which
result from unsound
reasoning respecting
true data
(Babbage, 1832)
Example Cognitive Dissonance
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
“A reflex, then, is a correlation of a stimulus
and a response at a level of restriction marked
by the orderliness of the changes in the
correlation”
(Skinner, 1935; 1999, p. 517, bold added)
Skinner characterized the boundaries of
response classes in terms of the “natural lines
of fracture along which behavior and
environment actually break”
(Skinner, 1935, p. 40, bold added)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Put forward by Festinger (1957)
Two beliefs are dissonant when the opposite of one belief
follows from the other – leads to a state of cognitive
uncomfortable dissonance – leading to a “harmonization” of
these two opposing beliefs with the change often going in a
surprising direction
-
Mental conflict that energizes behavior in a certain direction
Uses different designs to study the phenomenon:
-
Induced - compliance paradigm
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Self – perception theory (Bem, 1967)
(Tested by using the same design – just making
another person watch and the same group
differences occurred – ingenius and simple)
Behavior analytic view based on verbal behavior
 Internal stimuli give little information
 Tacting another persons behavior is the same as
tacting ones own behavior – self-reporting

The point: The orderliness between behavior and
environment exist in the data
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Goal- setting theory
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016

People have a drive to reach a clearly defined end state

Positive results attributed to cognitive mediators

Locke & Latham, (2002) focused on four «mechanisms»: 1)
Direct attention 2) Energizing function 3) Affect
percistance 4) Lead to use of task relevant knowledge and
strategies

Modifying variables are proximity, difficulty and specificity

Widespread use of SMART goals
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
A
goal is a stimulus that precedes behavior
 Goal acquire discriminative control through
reinforcement
 A goal can function as a reinforcing stimulus
 Function of goal setting is part of a learning
history
 Failure to reach goal - it will signal nonreinforcement
 Goal setting studied by behavioral analytic
techniques is a goal
(Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
«The goal is to 20% weightloss in in 3 months»
 is a stimulus
 could be a motivational operation

Goal following is behavior and can be reinforced or
punished

To set a goal is behavior and can be reinforced or punished

What does these words mean: Specific / difficult goals /
commitment to the goal / energized?
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Undermining effect
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
 The
theory that extrinsic reinforcement
undermine the intrinsic reinforcement (Deci
& Ryan, 1985)
 The
definition of “intrinsic” is invalid (Reiss,
2005; Flora, 2004)
 The
distinction might be more accurately
“naturally occurring reinforcers” versus
“artificaial reinforcers” / contrieved
reinforcers – more to the point
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Group 1
Activity
Group 2
Activity
• Presumably
intrinsically
motivated
• Presumably
intrinsically
motivated
“Reward”
• Expected / not
expected
No reward
• Engages in the
activity
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Free choice
• Dependent
variable (amount
of time,
responses)
Free choice
• Dependent
variable (amount
of time,
responses)
 Group
designs
 Invalid concepts (intrinsic)
 Short baselines
 One reward
 Different rewards
 Vague variable (high and low interest
activities)
 Self reporting
 Intrusive experimental conditions
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016

Seems to be general agreement that too many variables are not controlled for

Any stimulus can function as punisher / conditioned aversive stimulus (see
Lepper et al., 1973)

Being watched which is a component of most social rewards might function as
a punisher / conditioned aversive stimulus (Amabile, 1983)

In spite of invalid construct undermining is subject to neuropsychological
research claiming to find neural circuits responsible for undermining (Ma et
al., 2014, Murayama et al., 2010)

In spite of criticism - meta-analysis are conducted - (9 in total) conclude in
different directions (Cerasoli et al. 2014; Cameron et al. 2001; Deci et al.
1999)

In spite of criticism – the concept is treated as a valid variable in so many
different ways (Patall, et al. 2008)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
B
A
• Play on a
horn (sound)
B
A
• Reward for
playing on
horn (sound)
A
• Reward for
playing on horn
(no sound)
• Play on horn
(sound)
B
• Reward for
playing on horn
(sound)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
• Reward for
playing on horn
(no sound)
 Use
of N=1 design with repeated measures
 Dirty
rats
 The
reinforcer history is not unimportant
(Pipkin & Vollmer, 2009)
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016

Harmony

Method - results – discussion

Seek parsimonius explanations

Make use of the conceptual system

Read other paradigms research – data

Systematic replications
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016
Silje Haugland NAFO 2016