Manipulating the behavior-altering effect of the

motivating operation: Examination of the influence

on challenging behavior during leisure activities

Mark F. O’Reilly a,*, Jeff Sigafoos b, Giulio Lancioni c,Mandy Rispoli a, Russell Lang a, Jeff Chan a,

Wendy Machalicek a, Paul Langthorne d

a Department of Special Education, 1 University Station D5300,

The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, United Statesb University of Tasmania, Australia

c University of Bari, Italyd University of Kent, United Kingdom

Received 18 May 2007; accepted 1 June 2007

Abstract

We examined the behavior-altering effect of the motivating operation on challenging behavior during

leisure activities for three individuals with severe disabilities. Prior functional analyses indicated that

challenging behavior was maintained by positive reinforcement in the form of attention or tangible items

for all participants. During leisure sessions, each participant played preferred games (cards, jigsaws) with

two individuals without disabilities. The discriminative stimuli for challenging behavior were present

during leisure sessions but challenging behavior was never reinforced. Immediately prior to leisure

sessions, the participants received either access to the reinforcers that maintained challenging behavior or

no access. Access versus no access to reinforcers for challenging behavior prior to leisure sessions was

alternated in a multi-element design. Results demonstrated higher levels of challenging behavior during

leisure sessions when the participants did not have access to the reinforcers prior to the sessions. Little

challenging behavior occurred during leisure sessions when the participants had prior access to the

reinforcers. Arguments for further examining the behavior-altering effects of the motivating operation in

future applied research are presented.

# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Severe disabilities; Motivating operation; Challenging behavior; Leisure

Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 471 7140.

E-mail address: markoreilly@mail.utexas.edu (M.F. O’Reilly).

0891-4222/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2007.06.004

Motivating operations (MOs) or setting events are contextual variables that influence the

probability of operant responding by influencing the evocative effect of discriminative stimuli

and the reinforcing value of consequences (Carr & Smith, 1995; Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, &

Poling, 2003; Michael, 1982). In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the

application of setting events or MOs to enhance instruction and behavior management strategies

for individuals with developmental disabilities (Luiselli, 2006; McGill, 1999; Wilder & Carr,

1998). For example, Taylor et al. (2005) taught three students with autism to initiate social

interactions with peers. The three students received preferred snacks contingent upon appropriate

initiations with peers. When the students were deprived of preferred snacks prior to sessions they

initiated interactions. When they had access to snacks prior to sessions, they did not initiate with

peers. These results demonstrate that pre-session deprivation of snacks established the

reinforcing value of snacks during sessions and therefore enhanced the effectiveness of the

intervention. In another example, O’Reilly (1995) demonstrated that the aggressive outbursts of a

man with severe disabilities were maintained by negative reinforcement (escape from vocational

task demands). These aggressive outbursts were also more severe when preceded by a night of

disturbed sleep. These results suggested that sleep disturbance increased the aversiveness of task

demands and therefore increased the probability of aggression when task demands were

presented. The intervention consisted of strategies to abolish the influence of sleep disturbance

(day time naps) and to reduce the aversiveness of task demands (simplifying task requirements).

In the above examples, the researchers identified contextual variables (pre-session access to

snacks and sleep disturbance) that appeared to function as MOs (increased the reinforcing value

of snacks and escape from vocational tasks). These examples typify intervention research on

MOs to date in the sense that they focus on the reinforcer establishing or abolishing effects of the

MO. In other words, researchers have focused on how MOs influence the consequences

maintaining responses. However, MOs may also influence operant responding when

consequences are currently unavailable. This has been described as the behavior-altering effect

of the MO (Laraway et al., 2003; O’Reilly et al., in press; O’Reilly, Sigafoos, et al, 2006). For

example, a student may be motivated to access attention (e.g., play with peers) or a favorite toy or

snack item when these consequences are currently unavailable (peers may be engaged in

academic tasks, a peer may be playing with the favorite toy, or it may not be an appropriate time

for snacks). In essence, we are describing a situation where the motivation to access a

consequence is present, the discriminative stimuli are present (i.e., peers, favorite toy, snack), but

the response is placed on extinction. In such circumstances, the MO may evoke challenging

behaviors that have previously been reinforced by access to these consequences.

In such situations as above, there are at least three general approaches to intervention that

would seem logical. First, differential reinforcement of appropriate behavior and perhaps

punishment of challenging behavior might be used. Second, the discriminative stimuli that evoke

the challenging behavior might be removed from the immediate environment. For example, the

person might be removed from the environment where peers are working. Snacks or favorite toys

might be placed in a different room. However, removal of salient discriminative stimuli may be

impractical or counterproductive in some circumstances (e.g., removing a student with

challenging behavior from a classroom, locking the kitchen door). Finally, an intervention might

focus on reducing the evocative effectiveness of the MO. Such an intervention might eliminate

challenging behavior by reducing the motivation to access the desired consequences. Little

research has examined this latter proposal (O’Reilly et al., 2007).

In the current study, we attempted to reduce the evocative effect of the MO for challenging

behavior with three individuals with severe disabilities when engaged in leisure activities.

M.F. O’Reilly et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340334

Previous functional analyses for the participants had indicated that challenging behavior

(self-injury, aggression, bizarre speech) was maintained by positive reinforcement in the form of

access to attention or food items. During leisure activities, the discriminative stimuli for

challenging behavior (other persons or food items) were present but challenging behavior was

placed on extinction. Immediately prior to leisure activities, the participants were either given

access or no access to the reinforcers identified as maintaining challenging behavior in the prior

functional analysis. The no-access condition was designed to ensure that participants were

motivated to respond to access attention or food during the leisure sessions. In contrast, the access

condition immediately prior to leisure sessions was designed to reduce motivation to engage in

challenging behavior during leisure activities through the mechanism of satiation.

1. Method

1.1. Participants, setting, and sessions

Bart, Joe, and Charles were 16, 22, and 25 years of age, respectively. Bart functioned at the 2-

year-old level, while Joe and Charles functioned at the 4-year-old level of the Vineland Adaptive

Behavior Scales–Interview Edition (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984). Bart and Charles scored

in the severe range, while Joe scored in the moderate range on the Childhood Autism Rating

Scale (Schopler, Reichler, & Renner, 1988). All three participants attended day service for

individuals with severe disabilities that provided habilitative programming including

independent living skills training and sheltered and supported employment. Leisure sessions

were 20 min and were conducted in a room at the facility that contained a variety of leisure items

including games, magazines, a television, tables, and chairs. Leisure sessions were conducted

one to two times per week for each of the participants.

1.2. Functional analysis

Prior to this study, an analogue functional analysis was conducted with each of the participants

to identify the operant contingencies maintaining challenging behavior (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer,

Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994). All participants were exposed to three conditions

(i.e., attention, demand, and play). In addition to the aforementioned three conditions, Bart

and Charles were also assessed under a tangible condition as staff reported that challenging

behavior seemed to be maintained by access to savory snacks (Bart) and soft drinks (Charles).

Finally, Joe was also assessed under an alone condition as staff reported that his challenging

behavior appeared to occur occasionally when he was alone. The session-by-session results of

these assessments for Bart and Joe are reported elsewhere (cf. O’Reilly, Edrisinha, Sigafoos,

Lancioni, & Andrews, 2006; O’Reilly, Sigafoos, et al., 2006). The results of these functional

analyses indicated that challenging behavior was maintained by positive reinforcement in the

form of access to tangible items (savory snacks and soft drinks) for Bart and Charles and access to

social attention for Joe.

1.3. Data collection and target behaviors

All leisure sessions were videotaped and target behaviors were scored using a 10 s partial

interval recording procedure. Target behaviors for Bart included hand biting, head banging, head

hitting, and hitting others. For Joe, the target behavior consisted of bizarre speech (taking on the

M.F. O’Reilly et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340 335

persona of various comic book characters), while Charles engaged in perseverative speech by

repeatedly requesting a particular soft drink.

1.4. Pre-session access versus no access to the reinforcer

Immediately prior to each leisure session, the participants were given either continuous

access or no access to the reinforcer identified as maintaining challenging behavior. These pre-

session conditions were 15 min in length. Pre-session access for Bart and Charles consisted of

continuous access to savory snacks or a favored soft drink respectively. Pre-session access for

Joe consisted of engaging him continuously in social interactions. Pre-session no access

consisted of placing the participants in a room for 15 min with no access to the identified

reinforcers immediately prior to leisure sessions. These pre-session conditions were

conducted in a clinical assessment room at the facility that contained a table and several

chairs.

1.5. Experimental design

The pre-session access and no-access conditions were implemented in a multi-element

treatment design (Kennedy, 2005). This design enabled us to examine the influence of the two

pre-session conditions while controlling for order and sequence effects.

1.6. Leisure sessions

During leisure sessions, each participant had the opportunity to play preferred games with two

female graduate students in special education. These graduate students were not involved in any

other aspect of the study and both had extensive experience working in independent living

programs with adults with severe disabilities. Leisure sessions were implemented individually

for each participant. Two preferred games, as identified by staff report, were played during each

leisure session. The activities included card games, bingo, completing jigsaw puzzles, and

drawing pictures using colored pencils and stencils.

The graduate students were instructed to interact informally with one another and the

participant and to aid the participant if he had difficulty completing tasks. Graduate students

were instructed not to respond to any of the target challenging behaviors during sessions and to

just continue with the games if challenging behavior occurred. Savory snacks (Bart) and a

preferred beverage (Charles) were visible but unavailable (placed on a separate table from where

the leisure activities were occurring) during leisure sessions. In other words, the discriminative

stimuli for challenging behavior were present (tangibles for Bart and Charles and the presence of

another person for Joe) during leisure sessions but challenging behaviors were placed on

extinction.

1.7. Inter-observer agreement

All leisure sessions were videotaped and inter-observer agreement was calculated on 20%

of sessions for each participant. Two observers simultaneously but independently scored

the videotapes. Agreement was calculated using an overall (occurrence plus non-occurrence)

interval-by-interval agreement protocol. Inter-observer agreement was 100% across all

participants.

M.F. O’Reilly et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340336

2. Results

The results of the pre-session manipulations on challenging behavior during leisure sessions are

presented for Bart, Joe, and Charles in Figs. 1–3, respectively. Overall, there were lower rates of

challenging behavior during leisure sessions when participants had free access to the consequences

maintaining challenging behavior immediately prior to those sessions. For Bart and Joe,

challenging behavior was high during leisure sessions when they did not have access to the

consequences prior to sessions (mean occurrence of 53 and 61%, respectively). When provided

with pre-session access to the consequences, their challenging behavior was dramatically less

during leisure sessions with a mean occurrence of 5 and 10% for Bart and Joe, respectively. The

difference in challenging behavior during leisure sessions across pre-session access (mean

occurrence = 31%) versus no access (mean occurrence = 9.5%) conditions was evident but not as

notable for Charles. Overall, Charles engaged in less challenging behavior than Bart and Joe.

3. Discussion

Overall, the results of this study demonstrate the behavior-altering effects of the MO on

challenging behavior during leisure activities for three young men with developmental

disabilities and autism. High frequencies of challenging behavior occurred during leisure

activities when Bart, Joe, and Charles did not have access to attention, savory snacks, or soft

drinks immediately prior to the these sessions. Alternatively, when these reinforcers were

available prior to sessions, there was less challenging behavior. Bart, Joe, and Charles never

received attention or tangible consequences for challenging behavior during leisure sessions. The

M.F. O’Reilly et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340 337

Fig. 1. Percentage of intervals with challenging behavior for Bart during leisure sessions across pre-session access versus

pre-session no-access conditions.

M.F. O’Reilly et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340338

Fig. 2. Percentage of intervals with challenging behavior for Joe during leisure sessions across pre-session access versus

pre-session no-access conditions.

Fig. 3. Percentage of intervals with challenging behavior for Charles during leisure sessions across pre-session access

versus pre-session no-access conditions.

no-access condition seemed to produce a state of deprivation that had an evocative effect on

challenging behavior during subsequent leisure sessions. In contrast, the access condition

appeared to produce a state of satiation resulting in an abative effect during leisure sessions. The

pre-session conditions (access versus no access) acted as an MO and produced a behavior-

altering effect on challenging behavior.

The results of this study provide preliminary evidence for a relatively simple and unobtrusive

intervention for reducing challenging behavior maintained by positive reinforcement.

Challenging behavior may become problematic in situations where the discriminative stimuli

and MOs are present. In many such situations, it may be difficult to remove the salient

discriminative stimuli (as discussed previously). Additionally, it may be impractical or

stigmatizing to implement consequence-based strategies in such situations. For example, in the

leisure activities described in this study, a consequence-based intervention may have interfered

with the natural flow of interactions during play. In other situations (e.g., when placing a child

with disabilities and challenging behavior in an inclusive classroom setting), consequences-

based strategies may be difficult to implement with fidelity. In these situations, an antecedent

intervention designed to reduce the motivation to engage in challenging behavior may be the

strategy of choice.

The results of this study and some of our other research exploring the behavior-altering effects

of the MO may have implications for the understanding and use of operant extinction in applied

settings (cf. O’Reilly, Edrisinha, et al., 2006; O’Reilly et al., 2007, in press; O’Reilly, Sigafoos,

et al., 2006). In essence, challenging behavior was placed on extinction (i.e., reinforcement was

unavailable) during leisure sessions for the participants. The availability of the reinforcer for

challenging behavior prior to leisure sessions seemed to have a significant impact on the

probability of challenging behavior during subsequent extinction (leisure) sessions. The

relationship between motivation to respond and extinction appears to have received little

attention in the applied literature (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Combinations of extinction

protocols with interventions to reduce the motivation to engage in challenging behavior may

produce rapid decreases of behavior and reduce the probability of negative side effects associated

with extinction (cf. Lerman & Iwata, 1996).

While the results of this research are relatively clear, it is important to replicate this

methodology with other participants and in other contexts. For example, intervention research is

needed to identify unobtrusive support strategies for children with severe disabilities who are

being placed in inclusive settings (McGill, 1999). Future research might examine interventions

derived from the behavior-altering effect of the MO in such situations. This study examined the

behavior-altering effects of the MO for challenging behavior maintained by positive

reinforcement in the form of attention and access to preferred tangibles. There is a need to

examine how the behavior-altering effects can be examined for escape-maintained challenging

behavior. Future research should also address issues such as maintenance and generalization of

treatment effects and their social validity.

One limitation of this approach to intervention is that it is only likely to prove effective if the

pre-session access results in satiation and therefore functions as an abolishing operation. If

satiation does not occur, then pre-session access to attention or tangibles may represent a form of

reinforcer sampling (Ayllon & Azrin, 1968). Reinforcer sampling could function as an

establishing operation and thus non-satiating pre-session access to reinforcers could have the

paradoxical effect of increasing challenging behavior during the session (Roantree & Kennedy,

2006). In the present study, the 15-min pre-session appeared sufficient to produce satiation.

Future research might be improved by including a behavioral criterion for determining the length

M.F. O’Reilly et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340 339

of the pre-session (e.g., the pre-session might continue until the individual shows signs of

satiation, such as ceasing his/her consumption of the reinforcer).

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Alonzo Andrews and the Autism Treatment Centers of Dallas and San

Antonio for their support in conducting this study.

References

Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). Reinforcer sampling: A technique for increasing the behavior of mental patients.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 13–20.

Carr, E. G., & Smith, C. E. (1995). Biological setting events for self-injury. Mental Retardation and Developmental

Disabilities Research Reviews, 1, 94–98.

Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/

Merrill.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-

injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209 (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Develop-

mental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1980).

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some

further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 407–414.

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Developing a technology for the use of operant extinction in clinical settings: An

examination of basic and applied research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 345–382.

Luiselli, J. K. (2006). Antecedent assessment and intervention: Supporting children and adults with developmental

disabilities in community settings. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes.

McGill, P. (1999). Establishing operations: Implications for the assessment, treatment, and prevention of problem

behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 393–418.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155.

O’Reilly, M. F. (1995). Functional analysis and treatment of escape-maintained aggression correlated with sleep

deprivation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 225–226.

O’Reilly, M. F., Edrisinha, C., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., & Andrews, A. (2006a). Isolating the evocative and abative

effects of an establishing operation on challenging behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 21, 195–204.

O’Reilly, M. F., Edrisinha, C., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Cannella, H., Machalicek, W., et al. (2007). Manipulating the

evocative and abative effects of an establishing operation: Influences on challenging behavior during classroom

instruction. Behavioral Interventions, 22, 137–145.

O’Reilly, M. F., Edrisinha, C., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Machalicek, W., & Antonucci, M. (in press). An analysis of the

effects of pre-session levels of attention on subsequent attention-extinction and alone conditions. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis.

O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Edrisinha, C., Lancioni, G., Cannella, H., Choi, H., et al. (2006b). A preliminary

examination of the evocative effects of the establishing operation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 239–242.

Roantree, C. F., & Kennedy, G. H. (2006). A paradoxical effect of presession attention on stereotypy: Antecedent attention

as an establishing, not abolishing operation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 381–384.

Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS). Los Angeles: Western

Psychological Services.

Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview Edition. Circle

Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Taylor, B., Hoch, H., Potter, B., Rodriguez, A., Spinnato, D., & Kalaigian, M. (2005). Manipulating establishing

operations to promote initiations toward peers in children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26,

385–392.

Wilder, D., & Carr, J. (1998). Recent advances in the modification of establishing operations to reduce aberrant behavior.

Behavioral Interventions, 13, 43–59.

M.F. O’Reilly et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 333–340340