This document discusses refinements to terminology used to describe motivating operations (MOs) in behavior analysis. It suggests that: 1) Not all motivating events are establishing operations, as some decrease rather than increase the effectiveness of consequences. These are better described as abolishing operations (AOs). 2) A single MO can affect multiple behaviors both positively and negatively. 3) MOs influence the punishing as well as reinforcing effectiveness of consequences by altering how desirable those consequences are.

1. JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2003, 36, 407–414 NUMBER 3 (FALL 2003)
MOTIVATING OPERATIONS AND TERMS TO
DESCRIBE THEM: SOME FURTHER REFINEMENTS
SEAN LARAWAY, SUSAN SNYCERSKI,
JACK MICHAEL, AND ALAN POLING
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
Over the past decade, behavior analysts have increasingly used the term establishing op-
eration (EO) to refer to environmental events that influence the behavioral effects of
operant consequences. Nonetheless, some elements of current terminology regarding EOs
may interfere with applied behavior analysts’ efforts to predict, control, describe, and
understand behavior. The present paper (a) describes how the current conceptualization
of the EO is in need of revision, (b) suggests alternative terms, including the generic
term motivating operation (MO), and (c) provides examples of MOs and their behavioral
effects using articles from the applied behavior analysis literature.
DESCRIPTORS: motivation, establishing operations, abolishing operations, moti-
vating operations, behavior-analytic terminology
The term establishing operation (EO), (1993a, 1993b) further identified three types
originally used by Keller and Schoenfeld of learned EOs, which he termed the surro-
(1950) and then by Millenson (1967) to de- gate CEO, the reflexive CEO, and the tran-
note motivating events, has been revived and sitive CEO. These CEO subtypes are dis-
reformulated in a series of papers by Michael cussed in detail elsewhere (e.g., McGill,
(e.g., 1982, 1983, 1988, 1993a, 1993b, 1999; Michael, 1982, 1993a, 1993b, 2000;
2000). Michael defined EOs as environmen- Olson, Laraway, & Austin, 2001) and will
tal events, operations, or stimulus conditions not be reviewed here.
that affect an organism’s behavior by altering Since Michael’s early articles on the topic
(a) the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness appeared (i.e., Michael, 1982, 1983), behav-
of other environmental events and (b) the ior analysts have increasingly recognized the
frequency of occurrence of that part of the importance of EOs and have generally
organism’s repertoire relevant to those events adopted Michael’s terminology with respect
as consequences. Michael termed the first ef- to them. From 1990 to 1999, the cumula-
fect the reinforcer-establishing effect and the tive number of articles in the Journal of Ap-
second effect the evocative effect. Uncondi- plied Behavior Analysis (JABA) that used the
tioned establishing operations (UEOs) do term establishing operation rose from three to
not require a learning history to change the over 60. Moreover, citations of Michael’s
effectiveness of consequences. In contrast, 1982 and 1993b articles on the EO have
conditioned establishing operations (CEOs) increased in number every year since their
acquire their motivating function as a result publication (Iwata, Smith, & Michael,
of a particular learning history. Michael 2000). In fact, Michael’s 1982 article, first
published in the Journal of the Experimental
We thank Robert Stromer and four anonymous re- Analysis of Behavior (JEAB), is now the JEAB
viewers for their very helpful comments on a previous article most frequently cited in JABA (Elliot,
version of this paper. Fuqua, Ehrhardt, & Poling, 2003). Recent
Correspondence concerning this article should be issues of JABA (Vol. 33, No. 4) and the Jour-
addressed to Alan Poling, Department of Psychology,
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan nal of Organizational Behavior Management
49008. (Vol. 21, No. 2) contained sections dedicat-
407

2. 408 SEAN LARAWAY et al.
ed to the EO. The EO concept has also been ply, most research on the EO has been pub-
discussed in several other publications (e.g., lished in JABA. Given the recent increase in
Agnew, 1998; Biglan, 1995; Blakely & interest in the EO concept demonstrated by
Schlinger, 1987; Chase & Hyten, 1985; applied behavior analysts, JABA readers seem
Dougher & Hackbert, 2000; Guerin, 1994; to be the natural audience for the changes
Hall & Sundberg, 1987; Klatt & Morris, in EO concept proposed in this paper. In
2001; Lamarre & Holland, 1985; Lohr- addition, we believe that the MO concept
mann-O’Rourke & Yurman, 2001; Poling, presented herein will improve the analysis
1986; Poling & Byrne, 2000; Schlinger & and treatment of behavior in applied set-
Blakely, 1987; Schlinger & Poling, 1998; Si- tings.
gafoos, 1999; Wilder & Carr, 1998). The
EO concept has even appeared in non-En- Not All Motivating Events Are
glish-language journals. For example, da Establishing Operations
Cunha (1995) and Miguel (2000) translated One possible limitation of current termi-
the EO concept into Portuguese. In short, nology stems from using establishing opera-
the EO concept has thus become the fore- tion as an omnibus term for all operations
most behavior-analytic approach to motiva- that have motivational effects. The term es-
tion, and behavior analysts who work in a tablishing implies only an increase in the ef-
variety of applied settings have increasingly fectiveness of a consequence as a reinforcer
used the concept in their analyses and inter- or punisher, yet many motivating variables
ventions. Interestingly, the EO concept has decrease the effectiveness of consequences.
not received much attention in the basic lit- For example, researchers have found that
erature (for exceptions, see Ailing, 1991; da time-based presentation of attention (as in
Cunha, 1993; Hixson, 1995; McPherson & so-called noncontingent reinforcement pro-
Osborne, 1986, 1988). cedures) reduced the reinforcing effective-
The EO concept has provided behavior ness of attention (e.g., Berg et al., 2000; Fi-
analysts with a useful way to describe an im- scher, Iwata, & Worsdell, 1997), although
portant class of operant controlling variables. time-based schedules likely have other be-
Nevertheless, some elements of current EO havioral effects as well. Similarly, Northup,
terminology may interfere with applied be- Fusilier, Swanson, Roane, and Borrero
havior analysts’ efforts to predict, control, (1997) found that, in some participants, the
describe, and understand behavior. One pur- stimulant drug methylphenidate decreased
pose of the present paper is to consider how the reinforcing effectiveness of coupons ex-
certain terms historically used in discussions changeable for edible items. This effect is
of EOs do not precisely describe the behav- consistent with the decrease in food con-
ioral effects of motivating events. A second sumption generally produced by stimulant
purpose is to provide, when necessary, alter- drugs (Julien, 2001). Using current termi-
native terms, including the omnibus term, nology, the interventions used in these stud-
motivating operation (MO). A third purpose ies would be termed EOs, even though they
is to describe MOs and their behavioral ef- reduced the effectiveness of the reinforcers
fects using examples relevant to applied be- involved.
havior analysts. Although the issues dis- Michael (1982, 1983, 1993b) recognized
cussed herein are pertinent to the general be- the problem of using establishing operation as
havior-analytic community, we believe that an omnibus term but stated that it was in-
refinements in the EO concept is of partic- convenient to introduce the complementary
ular interest to the readers of JABA. Put sim- term abolishing operation (AO; see also Mc-

3. MOTIVATING OPERATIONS 409
Gill, 1999, p. 394). Instead, Michael (1982) Drug Administration (2002) recently ap-
suggested that ‘‘ ‘establishing’ should be tak- proved buprenorphine as a treatment for
en to be short for ‘establishing or abolish- opiate dependence. The terminology sug-
ing’ ’’ (p. 151). In practice, using the same gested in this paper explicitly describes the
term to refer to events that either increase or AO functions of time-based schedules,
decrease the effectiveness of consequences methylphenidate, and buprenorphine,
seems illogical and may lead behavior ana- whereas the current terminology does not.
lysts to neglect operations with abolishing
effects (Poling, 2001). Hence, behavior an- MOs May Affect Multiple Behaviors
alysts should consider using AO to refer to The results of basic and applied research
any event that decreases the effectiveness of support the judgment that a given stimulus
a given consequence, EO to refer to any can have multiple behavioral functions (e.g.,
event that increases the effectiveness of a giv- Michael, 1988). In attempts to identify a be-
en consequence, and MO as an omnibus havior’s controlling variables, applied behav-
term that subsumes both AOs and EOs. ior analysts should be aware that a given
This suggested terminology will be used MO is likely to affect many behaviors and a
throughout the remainder of this paper. given behavior is likely to be affected by
Using the new terminology, time-based many MOs (Poling, 2001). In Northup et
presentations of attention in Fischer, Iwata, al. (1997), methylphenidate functioned as
and Worsdell (1997) and Berg et al. (2000) an AO for food-related coupons and as an
could be considered AOs for attention, as EO for coupons related to activity reinforc-
would methylphenidate (with respect to ers. Horner, Day, and Day (1997) examined
coupons exchangeable for edible items) in the motivating effects of neutralizing rou-
Northup et al. (1997). As these studies dem- tines on problem behaviors exhibited by
onstrate, AOs play an important role in ap- boys with developmental disabilities. They
plied behavior analysis, and treatments for found that various events, such as delaying
aberrant behavior sometimes involve AO a planned activity or sleep deprivation, could
manipulations (e.g., Fischer, Iwata, & Ma- have multiple motivating functions. In 1
zaleski, 1997; Hagopian, Fisher, & Legacy, participant, sleep deprivation reduced the
1994; Vollmer, Marcus, & Ringdahl, 1995). value of staff praise as a reinforcer (i.e., it
For example, many pharmacotherapies for functioned as an AO for praise) and in-
drug abuse function as AOs for drug rein- creased the value of immediate access to ed-
forcers (see Schuster, 1986). As a case in ible items as a reinforcer (i.e., it functioned
point, research with humans has demon- as an EO for edible items).
strated that the opiate drug buprenorphine Northup et al. (1997) and Horner et al.
(Subutex) reduces the reinforcing effective- (1997) demonstrated that MOs can have
ness of other opiate agonists (e.g., morphine, multiple, and sometimes simultaneous, mo-
heroin) by producing subjective effects sim- tivating effects. Thus, treatments that in-
ilar to opiate agonists and by blocking the volve MO manipulations may change alter-
subjective effects of opiate drugs adminis- native behaviors in addition to target behav-
tered concurrently (Mello, Mendelson, & iors. Using a relatively dense time-based
Kuehnle, 1982). Mello et al. found that, rel- schedule, Goh, Iwata, and DeLeon (2000)
ative to placebo, buprenorphine reduced delivered reinforcers that maintained self-in-
male heroin users’ choices for heroin at doses jurious behavior while they concurrently at-
that did not affect choices for money. Be- tempted to train appropriate alternative be-
cause of the drug’s AO effects, the Food and haviors, specifically mands, using the same

4. 410 SEAN LARAWAY et al.
reinforcers. The time-based schedule re- have reduced behavior. Indeed, Solnick, Rin-
duced the rate of self-injurious behavior but cover, and Peterson (1977) found that for
also interfered with the acquisition of time-out to function as a punishing event,
mands, and this schedule appears to have the time-in situation must provide a rela-
functioned as an AO for the reinforcers, tively high density of effective reinforcing
thereby preventing them from strengthening events. Such events are effective as reinforc-
mands. ers because of the action of their relevant
EOs (e.g., food deprivation for edible rein-
MOs Influence Punishers, Too forcers). Thus, the EOs for the programmed
To date, most discussions of MOs have reinforcers in time-in also established the
focused on EOs for reinforcement, although punishing effectiveness of ribbon loss (i.e.,
MOs also include EOs and AOs for punish- functioned as EOs for ribbon loss as a pun-
ment. As with reinforcing events, the capac- ishing event) and abated misbehaviors that
ity of events to function as punishers de- resulted in ribbon loss. Conversely, AOs that
pends on MOs. Specific examples of such reduced the effectiveness of the programmed
MOs are rare in the applied literature, be- reinforcers (e.g., food satiation for edible
cause most applied studies of MOs have fo- items) would also reduce the punishing ef-
cused on MOs for reinforcement. Neverthe- fectiveness of ribbon loss and increase the
less, some common behavioral interventions likelihood of misbehaviors that resulted in
that involve punishing consequences rely on ribbon loss.
MOs for their effectiveness. Consider, for Other authors have noted that the pun-
example, a study by Foxx and Shapiro ishing effectiveness of time-out depends on
(1978). These researchers investigated the ef- the effectiveness of reinforcers in time-in
fects of the time-out ribbon, a form of non- (e.g., Alberto & Troutman, 1990, p. 276;
exclusionary time-out, on the misbehavior of Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987, p. 450),
boys with mental retardation. Boys were giv- and a similar principle operates in token
en different-colored ribbons to wear. As long economies that incorporate response-cost
as a boy behaved appropriately, he was al- procedures. If the putative back-up reinforc-
lowed to continue wearing his ribbon, which ers are not currently effective, loss of tokens
(i.e., the loss of the opportunity to acquire
signaled that reinforcers, such as edible
the back-up ‘‘reinforcers’’) would not effec-
items, were available for his good behavior.
tively control behavior. In commonsense
If a boy behaved inappropriately, he tem-
terms, losing the opportunity to earn a con-
porarily lost his ribbon and could not earn
sequence is only important if you currently
reinforcers for 3 min and until he stopped
‘‘want’’ that consequence. Therefore, MOs
misbehaving.
that increase the reinforcing effectiveness of
The removal of the time-out ribbon sub-
particular objects or events also increase the
stantially reduced the percentage of intervals punishing effectiveness of making those ob-
in which misbehavior occurred. That is, re- jects or events unavailable (i.e., time-out) or
moval of the time-out ribbon functioned as of removing them (i.e., response cost). As
a punishing event. The capacity for ribbon this example illustrates, a single environmen-
loss to punish misbehavior was due to the tal event can have multiple and simultaneous
ribbon’s relation to currently effective rein- motivating effects.
forcers (e.g., edible items) that were available
when the boys possessed the ribbon. If the The Defining Effects of MOs
ribbon did not signal that effective reinforc- Another potential limitation of current
ers were available, ribbon loss would not terminology involves the names for the two

5. MOTIVATING OPERATIONS 411
effects that heretofore have defined MOs, change merits consideration. Because MOs
that is, the reinforcer-establishing effect and can increase or decrease responding, it seems
the evocative effect. Whereas these two imprecise to use evocative effect to refer to
terms are often used to define the effects of both kinds of changes. Michael (1983) not-
all MOs, in fact, these terms actually name ed this imprecision:
the specific behavioral effects of one subtype
The term [evoke] is somewhat unsat-
of MO, namely, one that establishes the re-
isfactory, however, in suggesting only
inforcing effectiveness of some event and
an increase, since some of the relations
evokes responses related to that event as a
that will be considered evocative in-
consequence. But, as stated previously, MOs
volve decreases. Evocative or suppressive
can establish and abolish the effectiveness of
would actually be more accurate but
reinforcers and punishers. To refer to both
also more cumbersome, so for now let
increases and decreases in the effectiveness of
us assign to evoke and evocative a bidi-
both reinforcers and punishers as reinforcer-
rectional implication. (p. 19)
establishing effects seems problematic.
Consider again the effect of time-based Instead of using evocative effect in the bidi-
presentation of attention on the subsequent rectional sense advocated by Michael, in the
reinforcing effectiveness of attention. Under interest of accuracy, behavior analysts should
current terminology, this effect would be consider using behavior-altering effect as a ge-
called a reinforcer-establishing effect, even neric description of MOs’ effects on behav-
though time-based attention abolished the ior. We have suggested elsewhere (Laraway,
effectiveness of attention as a reinforcer. Be- Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2001/2002)
havior analysts should consider using value- that behavior analysts (a) use the verb evoke
altering effect to replace reinforcer-establishing to describe an increase and the verb abate to
effect as a generic description of a change in describe a decrease in responding due to the
the effectiveness (i.e., value) of any operant action of antecedents and (b) denote the for-
consequence. Value-altering effects comprise mer an evocative effect and the latter an aba-
the (a) reinforcer-establishing, (b) reinforcer- tive effect. EOs for reinforcers have evocative
abolishing, (c) punisher-establishing, and (d) effects, as do AOs for punishers. AOs for
punisher-abolishing effects of MOs. It reinforcers have abative effects, as do EOs
should be noted that the effectiveness of for punishers. Thus, in Northup et al.
consequences is sometimes a relatively con- (1997) methylphenidate had an abative ef-
tinuous variable, with minimum, interme- fect on responding maintained by coupons
diate, and maximum values possible. Thus, exchangeable for edible items, and in Mello
EOs shift a consequence’s effectiveness to- et al. (1982) buprenorphine had an abative
ward the maximally effective end of the con- effect on heroin self-administration.
tinuum and AOs shift a consequence’s effec- A third effect of MOs mentioned by Mi-
tiveness toward the minimally effective end chael (1993a, 1993b) is that they modify the
of the continuum. In Fischer, Iwata, and evocative effects of discriminative stimuli.
Worsdell (1997), Berg et al. (2000), and MOs influence discriminative stimuli (a) by
Northup et al. (1997), presentation of non- making reinforcement and punishment pos-
contingent attention and administration of sible, thereby making discrimination train-
methylphenidate would be said to have re- ing possible, and (b) by changing the control
inforcer-abolishing effects. over behavior exerted by previously estab-
With respect to the second generic effect lished discriminative stimuli. Discrimination
of MOs (i.e., the evocative effect), one training relies on the processes of differential

6. 412 SEAN LARAWAY et al.
reinforcement or punishment, which, of abative effect. The evocative effect represents
course, require effective consequences. Once an increase in responding, and the abative
a discriminative stimulus has been devel- effect represents a decrease in responding. In
oped, the behavioral effects of that stimulus many natural and laboratory (particularly
will be seen only when an MO is in effect. free-operant) situations, researchers may
Thus, the behavior-altering effects of MOs have trouble disentangling the value- and be-
may depend on the presence of relevant dis- havior-altering effects of a given MO be-
criminative stimuli. This was demonstrated cause consequences often occur while the
by Horner et al. (1997), who found that the MO functions effectively, thereby confound-
probability of boys’ engaging in a problem ing the two effects. Pure behavior-altering ef-
behavior was higher when an MO and a dis- fects can be seen most clearly in extinction
criminative stimulus were presented together or before the first occurrence of the relevant
than when either of these antecedents were consequences (Klatt & Morris, 2001).
presented alone, in which case the probabil-
ity of problem behavior remained at near Concluding Comments
zero. The behavior-altering effect of MOs,
In conclusion, behavior analysts’ increas-
then, involves the direct effects of a given
ingly effective attempts to treat behavioral
MO on behavior combined with the MO’s
problems using the EO concept suggest that
effects on the ability of discriminative stim-
the general approach to motivation offered
uli to control behavior (Michael, 1993a,
by Michael is a fruitful one (e.g., Berg et al.,
1993b).
2000; Fischer, Iwata, & Mazaleski, 1997; Fi-
Summary of Motivating Operations and scher, Iwata, & Worsdell, 1997; Northup et
Their Effects al., 1997; for reviews, see McGill, 1999;
In sum, MOs have two defining effects. Wilder & Carr, 1998; see also Iwata &
They alter (a) the effectiveness of reinforcers Smith, 2000; Smith & Iwata, 1997). Nev-
or punishers (the value-altering effect) and ertheless, current terminology associated
(b) the frequency of operant response classes with this approach needs further refinement.
related to those consequences (the behavior- The expanded MO concept presented here
altering effect). The value-altering effect, as a makes a behavior-analytic approach to mo-
generic term, subsumes the following specif- tivation more comprehensive by explicitly
ic effects of MOs: (a) the reinforcer-estab- recognizing distinct motivating operations
lishing effect, (b) the reinforcer-abolishing that previously have been underemphasized
effect, (c) the punisher-establishing effect, and by clarifying the effects of these con-
and (d) the punisher-abolishing effect. Based trolling variables. Applied behavior analysts
on the different value-altering effects, we can have only recently begun the serious study
distinguish four MO subtypes: (a) EOs re- of the effects of antecedents on problem be-
lated to reinforcement, (b) AOs related to havior. According to Smith and Iwata, a pos-
reinforcement, (c) EOs related to punish- sible reason for this situation is the lack of
ment, and (d) AOs related to punishment. a unifying conceptual system for interpreting
Again, establishing operations make rein- the effects of antecedent events. It is our
forcers and punishers more effective, and hope that the conceptual scheme presented
abolishing operations make reinforcers and in this article will prove useful in categoriz-
punishers less effective. The behavior-altering ing and making sense of one important class
effect, as a generic term, subsumes two effects of antecedent variables, namely, those that
of MOs: (a) the evocative effect and (b) the influence the effectiveness of operant con-

7. MOTIVATING OPERATIONS 413
sequences and behavior controlled by those ruary 19, 2003, from http://www.fda.gov/bbs/
topics/ANSWERS/2002/ANS01165.html
consequences. Foxx, R. M., & Shapiro, S. T. (1978). The timeout
ribbon: A nonexlusionary timeout procedure.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 125–136.
REFERENCES Goh, H.-L., Iwata, B. A., & DeLeon, I. G. (2000).
Competition between noncontingent and contin-
Agnew, J. L. (1998). The establishing operation in gent reinforcement schedules during response ac-
organizational behavior management. Journal of quisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,
Organizational Behavior Management, 18, 7–19. 195–205.
Ailing, K. (1991). The effects of a conditioned estab- Guerin, B. (1994). Analyzing social behavior: Behavior
lishing operation on performance of a two-compo- analysis and the social sciences. Reno, NV: Context
nent chain. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Press.
Western Michigan University. Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., & Legacy, S. M.
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1990). Applied (1994). Schedule effects of noncontingent rein-
behavior analysis for teachers. New York: Merrill. forcement on attention-maintained destructive be-
Berg, W. K., Peck, S., Wacker, D. P., Harding, J., havior in identical quadruplets. Journal of Applied
McComas, J., Richman, D., & Brown, K. Behavior Analysis, 27, 317–325.
(2000). The effects of presession exposure to at- Hall, G., & Sundberg, M. L. (1987). Teaching mands
tention on the results of assessments of attention by manipulating conditioned establishing opera-
as a reinforcer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, tions. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 41–53.
33, 463–477. Hixson, M. D. (1995). The development of a transitive
Biglan, A. (1995). Changing cultural practices: A con- conditioned establishing operation. Unpublished
textualist framework for intervention research. Reno, master’s thesis, Western Michigan University.
NV: Context Press. Horner, R. H., Day, M. H., & Day, J. R. (1997).
Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function- Using neutralizing routines to reduce problem be-
altering contingency-specifying stimuli. The Be- haviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,
havior Analyst, 10, 183–187. 601–613.
Chase, P. N., & Hyten, C. (1985). A historical and
Iwata, B. A., & Smith, R. G. (2000). Establishing
pedagogic note on establishing operations. The
operations in applied behavior analysis [Special
Behavior Analyst, 8, 121–122.
section]. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L.
401–514.
(1987). Applied behavior analysis. New York: Mac-
Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., & Michael, J. (2000).
Millan.
Current research on the influence of establishing
da Cunha, R. N. (1993). An experimental demonstra-
tion of the transitive conditioned establishing oper- operations on behavior in applied settings. Journal
ation with pigeons. Unpublished doctoral disser- of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 411–418.
tation, Western Michigan University. Julien, R. M. (2001). A primer of drug action. New
da Cunha, R. N. (1995). Motivacao e analise do York: Freeman.
comportamento [Motivation and behavior analy- Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles
sis]. Temas em Psicologia, 3, 11–18. of psycholog y. New York: Appleton-Century-
Dougher, M. J., & Hackbert, L. (2000). Establishing Crofts.
operations, cognition, and emotion. The Behavior Klatt, K. P., & Morris, E. K. (2001). The Premack
Analyst, 23, 11–24. principle, response deprivation, and establishing
Elliot, A. J., Fuqua, R. W., Ehrhardt, K., & Poling, operations. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 173–180.
A. (2003). The effects of editorial policy on the Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. G. (1985). The functional
integration of basic and applied research: A cross- independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the
citation analysis. Manuscript submitted for publi- Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 5–19.
cation. Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A.
Fischer, S. M., Iwata, B. A., & Mazaleski, J. L. (2001/2002). The abative effect: A new term to
(1997). Noncontigent delivery of arbitrary rein- describe the action of antecedents that reduce op-
forcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior. erant responding. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 335–338. 18, 101–104.
Fischer, S. M., Iwata, B. A., & Worsdell, A. S. (1997). Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S., & Yurman, B. (2001). Nat-
Attention as an establishing operation and as re- uralistic assessment of and intervention for
inforcement during functional analyses. Journal of mouthing behaviors influenced by establishing op-
Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 335–338. erations. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
Food and Drug Administration. (2002, October 8). 3, 19–27.
Subutex and Suboxone approved to treat opiate de- McGill, P. (1999). Establishing operations: Implica-
pendence. FDA Talk Paper T02-38. Retrieved Feb- tions for the assessment, treatment, and preven-

8. 414 SEAN LARAWAY et al.
tion of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Be- in organizational behavior management. Journal of
havior Analysis, 32, 393–418. Organizational Behavior Management, 21, 7–35.
McPherson, A., & Osborne, J. G. (1986). The emer- Poling, A. (1986). A primer of human behavioral phar-
gence of establishing stimulus control. The Psy- macology. New York: Plenum.
chological Record, 36, 375–386. Poling, A. (2001). Comments regarding Olson, Lar-
McPherson, A., & Osborne, J. G. (1988). Control of away, and Austin (2001). Journal of Organization-
behavior by an establishing stimulus. Journal of the al Behavior Management, 21, 47–56.
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 213–227. Poling, A., & Byrne, T. (Eds.). (2000). Introduction
Mello, N. K., Mendelson, J. H., & Kuehnle, J. C. to behavioral pharmacology. Reno, NV: Context
(1982). Buprenorphine effects on human heroin Press.
self-administration: An operant analysis. Journal of Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-alter-
Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 223, ing effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The
30–39. Behavior Analyst, 10, 41–45.
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discrim- Schlinger, H., & Poling, A. (1998). Introduction to
inative and motivating functions of stimuli. Jour- scientific psychology. New York: Plenum.
nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, Schuster, C. R. (1986). Implications of laboratory re-
149–155. search for the treatment of drug dependence. In
Michael, J. (1983). Evocative and repertoire-altering S. R. Goldberg & I. P. Stolerman (Eds.), Behav-
effects of an environmental event. The Analysis of ioral analysis of drug dependence (pp. 357–385).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Verbal Behavior, 2, 19–21.
Sigafoos, J. (1999). Creating opportunities for aug-
Michael, J. (1988). Establishing operations and the
mentative and alternative communication: Strat-
mand. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 6, 3–9. egies for involving people with developmental dis-
Michael, J. (1993a). Concepts and principles of behav- abilities. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Com-
ior analysis. Kalamazoo, MI: Society for the Ad- munication, 15, 183–190.
vancement of Behavior Analysis. Smith, R. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1997). Antecedent
Michael, J. (1993b). Establishing operations. The Be- influences on behavior disorders. Journal of Ap-
havior Analyst, 16, 191–206. plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 343–375.
Michael, J. (2000). Implications and refinements of Solnick, J. V., Rincover, A., & Peterson, C. R. (1977).
the establishing operation concept. Journal of Ap- Some determinants of the reinforcing and punish-
plied Behavior Analysis, 33, 401–410. ing effects of timeout. Journal of Applied Behavior
Miguel, C. F. (2000). O conceito de operacao esta- Analysis, 10, 415–424.
belecedora na analise do comportamento [The Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B. A., & Ringdahl, J. E.
concept of establishing operation in behavior anal- (1995). Noncontingent escape as treatment for
ysis]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 16, 259–267. self-injurious behavior maintained by negative re-
Millenson, J. R. (1967). Principles of behavioral anal- inforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
ysis. New York: Macmillan. 28, 15–26.
Northup, J., Fusilier, I., Swanson, V., Roane, H., & Wilder, D. A., & Carr, J. E. (1998). Recent advances
Borrero, J. (1997). An evaluation of methylphe- in the modification of establishing operations to
nidate as a potential establishing operation for reduce aberrant behavior. Behavioral Interventions,
some common classroom reinforcers. Journal of 13, 43–59.
Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 615–625. Received October 10, 2002
Olson, R., Laraway, S., & Austin, J. (2001). Uncon- Final acceptance April 30, 2003
ditioned and conditioned establishing operations Action Editor, Robert Stromer