Motivating Operations (MOs): How BCBAs Use Them

A motivating operation (MO) is anything in the environment that changes how much a reinforcer is worth right now. Hunger makes food worth more. A full stomach makes food worth less. MOs also change how likely a person is to do the behaviors that have earned that reinforcer before.

MOs matter because a reward only works if the person wants it at that moment. A great teaching plan can fail when nobody checks motivation first. Below, ten clinicians explain how they spot MOs, track them, and plan around them. Their examples range from toddlers at play to teens with ADHD, worried parents, and busy staff teams.

What a motivating operation actually is#

Brian Middleton is a clinician who works on values-based approaches with learners and caregivers. He starts with a plain reminder of the definition.

MOs are environmental events or conditions that impact the significance of consequences and influence the probability of behaviors occurring.

From the talk — Brian Middleton

Middleton notes that MOs can push in either direction. They can raise or lower the value of a specific thing. That change, in turn, raises or lowers the chance that a behavior happens. He also stresses that an MO can affect a reward or a punisher.

Two common terms help here. An establishing operation (EO) makes something worth more. An abolishing operation (AO) makes something worth less. Most behavior analysts first learn behavior as a three-part chain: antecedent, behavior, consequence. Middleton reminds his audience that the full picture has four parts. The MO comes first, before the antecedent (the event right before a behavior). He calls this the four-term contingency. Leaving out the first term means leaving out why the consequence mattered at all.

Where the idea came from#

Tom Sabo teaches acceptance and commitment training (ACT, a behavioral approach built around values and committed action). He traces MOs back to the field's founders.

Skinner wrote about motivating operations. He didn't name it motivating operations, but he wrote about human motivation in terms of conditions of deprivation and aversive stimulation.

From the talk — Tom Sabo

Deprivation means going without something for a while. Aversive stimulation means something unpleasant is present. Sabo says people respond to these very naturally and automatically. Later, Jack Michael wrote about conditioned MOs. These are MOs a person learns during their lifetime rather than ones they are born with.

Sabo then goes one step further. Some learned MOs are built with words. He calls these verbally construed MOs. They can work over a long stretch of time and make a far-off reward feel more real. His example is grad school. When you signed up, you did not know if you would finish. Telling yourself why it mattered made "that dim light at the end of the tunnel shine brighter." Sabo links this to the task list item on using MO- and SD-based interventions. SDs are cues that signal a reward is available.

Motivation is a moving target#

Sean Yocum trains RBTs (Registered Behavior Technicians, the frontline staff in ABA) to teach during play. His first rule is short.

Motivation is a moving target.

From the talk — Sean Yocum

Yocum says motivation is never permanent. A child may love a toy right now and be over it five seconds later. That shift is satiation (having had enough of something). Being deprived of something else can pull the child's interest away just as fast.

He uses a simple example from his own life. At 10 o'clock at night, he has no MO to make coffee. He wants to go to bed. Kids work the same way. Yocum describes a common mistake. A technician shows up at the house with the usual toys and says, "Hey, you want to play?" The learner takes the toy, looks at it, and throws it.

If that MO is gone, we have to adjust.

From the talk — Sean Yocum

So the RBT's job is to keep following the learner. Yocum asked his audience if motivation is dynamic or stagnant. They agreed it is dynamic. It moves and changes all the time.

Scanning for MOs before you teach#

Yocum turns this into a habit. Before teaching, the technician scans the whole setting. Part of the scan is checking which MOs are in place right now.

He lists the questions to ask. Is the learner motivated for sensory input? For social interaction? For access to the toy you are trying to play with? Or are they trying to get away from something unpleasant? Each answer points to a different kind of teaching chance.

Our job is to Capitalize on MOs.

From the talk — Sean Yocum

Yocum then draws a line between two kinds of teaching moments. A captured opportunity is one that shows up on its own because the learner already wants something. An arranged opportunity is one the adult sets up on purpose. He says this is where MOs get "very, very tricky." If you arrange a teaching moment when there is no motivation, it is unlikely to work. That is why he wants staff to get good at observing. Natural environment teaching depends on it. So does the skill of noticing when a natural chance to teach pops up.

Choice can make a reinforcer worth more#

Matt Harrington looks at MOs through the lens of assent (a client's ongoing willingness to take part). He points out that assent implies choice. Choice, it turns out, has been studied a lot.

the addition of reinforcer choice can actually act as a motivational operation that increases the value of that reinforcer and instructional efficiency

From the talk — Matt Harrington

He offers an everyday test. Would you rather get one bag of Skittles at work? Or would you rather pick from Skittles, chocolate, crunch bars, and Butterfingers? Most people want the choice. He admits he would probably pick the same candy either way. He still wants the option.

Even if Skittles are your most preferred, research shows that the availability of choice increases the value as an EO of the Skittles bag.

From the talk — Matt Harrington

Harrington says researchers often test this with a concurrent chains setup. That design lets the learner first pick which option to work for. For treatment plans, his takeaway is simple. Building in assent can make the whole therapy experience more motivating. The child knows they have a steady choice to take part or not. They can also choose between different functional reinforcers.

When the same reward stops working: ADHD and abolishing operations#

Nicole Stewart, BCBA, works with families when ADHD is part of the picture. She sees a pattern in programs that do not change. When the same items and cues repeat session after session, they lose their pull.

Materials and SDs repeated across. Become an abolishing operation.

From the talk — Nicole Stewart, BCBA

Stewart links this to how the ADHD brain handles reward. She describes differences in the brain's reward cascade and dopamine (a brain chemical tied to reward). In her view, seeing the same reinforcer over and over creates habituation (getting used to something until it stops having an effect). Satiation also happens faster.

When the planned reward goes flat, other rewards take over. Stewart says competing reinforcement may be stronger for these learners. A child might escape a task or engage in stereotypy (repetitive movements or sounds) to get the input they are missing. She also flags high response effort as a problem.

Her advice is balance. Give reinforcement that is "not too much. Not too little." She notes that many ADHD learners become dependent on dense reward schedules. Many families come to her after being told to use a token board for every good behavior. Variety, not more of the same, keeps the MO alive.

Do not shrink the learner's world#

Kaelynn Partlow tells a story about a client in a speech session. The client sits on a beanbag chair, twirling a small wooden block. The client is not motivated for anything else. Many clinicians would want the therapist to take the block or the chair away. Then the client would have to ask for it back.

Partlow pushes back on that instinct.

We cannot reasonably hope to expand someone's motivation by shrinking down their worlds, which are already far too small.

From the talk — Kaelynn Partlow

Her reasoning is practical. The world has no shortage of beanbag chairs or blocks. Those items are always around. So there will be plenty of natural chances to teach the client to mand (make a request) for them. What is in short supply is time. Specifically, time to help the person enjoy other items and activities.

Partlow does not say to skip requesting for the block. She says the field often lingers on one goal for months, even years. When motivation is low, clinicians tend to underestimate how much a variety of rewarding options matters. Growing the list of things a person enjoys builds new MOs. Taking away the few things they love does not.

Sleep, hunger, and the whole child#

Michelle Vences approaches MOs from an interdisciplinary angle. She wants teams to see the child as a whole person. A child who bangs their head may be in pain because their stomach hurts and they cannot say so.

She trains her behavior technicians to ask two questions at the start of every session.

how did they sleep last night

From the talk — Michelle Vences

The second question is when the child last ate. Vences explains why. Kids go through growth spurts and may suddenly eat "like crazy." A set snack time may not match their needs. Many kids will not say, "I'm hungry." They will show it through behavior and refuse to do everything.

So her rule is to offer food and drinks often. Some kids lack the skill to request them. Others can communicate but have never had to practice asking, because parents hand things over at set times. If a child slept three hours, Vences adjusts the session to fit. Poor sleep and hunger are MOs. Ignoring them makes every other part of the plan harder.

For more on team-based care, see The Interdisciplinary Case Conference.

Reading MO shifts in the body and in words#

Carolyn spoke in a talk on teaching people with IDD (intellectual and developmental disabilities) to recognize internal warning signs. She focuses on safety and grooming situations. Many learners in these moments do not fight or protest. They disengage. They go quiet, freeze, or suddenly comply without real engagement.

Body signs can show up too. She lists flushed skin, sweating, fast breathing, trembling, and foot tapping. These can come right before escalation, like running away or a meltdown. Speech can shift as well.

Examples include increased manding for escape, repetitive rule statements, mom said no, excessive reinsurance seeking, scripted language, I'm okay, sudden topic changes, or decreased social initiations.

From the talk — Carolyn

Carolyn explains what these signs may mean.

these observable changes may signal a shift in motivating operations, indicating that the value of escape, safety, or proximity to trusted individuals has increased.

From the talk — Carolyn

Her point is that these behaviors should not be read as non-compliance by default. They may be early signs of private events (feelings only the person can sense inside their body). When adults notice and validate them, they can step in before things escalate. They also help the learner build interoceptive awareness (noticing the body's internal signals). The long-term goal is self-advocacy.

Put MOs in your ABC data#

Back to Brian Middleton. He gives clinicians a direct, hands-on instruction. If your team takes ABC data (antecedent, behavior, consequence notes), add MOs.

if you're taking ABC data and you're not including MOs as a part of that, you should start doing that as soon as possible because MOs can include emotions, emotional states that increases or decreases the probability of behavior occurring.

From the talk — Brian Middleton

His method is simple. Add an MO column to the data sheet. Under it, technicians note the person's emotional state. They also note setting events that could raise or lower the chance of the behavior. Middleton calls this "very operational." It is something staff can see and apply right away.

He also makes a point about control. Many people call control a function of behavior. Middleton disagrees. He says all functions of behavior are about control, but control is not a function itself.

Control is an MO. Control is a value.

From the talk — Brian Middleton

When a parent or teacher says they "just want control," he does not judge them. He looks at how little control they have in their life. Then he asks how to give them some, so they have more autonomy.

Values can work like motivating operations#

Middleton and Tom Sabo both connect MOs to values. Middleton says values-based interventions can serve as verbal motivating operations. He describes values as a large class of verbally built, long-term, highly potent reinforcers. In his view, values are not goals. They are the reasons goals matter.

Sabo comes at the same idea from ACT. He says verbally construed conditioned MOs "augment the salience of remote reinforcers." Put plainly, the words we tell ourselves can make a distant reward feel closer and more worth working for. He ties this to committed action, which builds positive reinforcement into hard tasks.

The two speakers agree on the core idea. Clients, caregivers, and clinicians all respond to MOs that live in language, not just in the room. A parent who values their child's independence may stick with a hard plan. A grad student who values the career may push through a tough semester. Middleton encourages clinicians to act as "values detectives" with both caregivers and learners. Finding what someone values can reveal an MO you can build on.

MOs in staff training and the workplace#

MOs are not just for clients. Two speakers apply them to staff.

Mellanie Page trains and onboards ABA teams. She sorts skills by impact. She names three high-impact skills: how to reinforce, how to establish the MO, and how to pair. Pairing means building a positive link between the adult and good things. These create a ripple effect. A technician who knows how to pair gains instructional control and a teaching relationship. Page suggests trimming time spent training admin tasks so these skills get more practice.

Makenzie Sandler looks at the employees themselves. She says "behavior goes where reinforcement flows." But a reward the company assumes is reinforcing may not be.

if you have specific performance metrics and you are rewarding based on your specific performance metrics, but they're not aligning... then you're not reinforcing the wanted behavior, right? The motivation's not there, right? Going back to the MOs.

From the talk — Makenzie Sandler

Her fix starts with asking staff about their preferences, even in the interview. She also points to the PDC-HS, a ready-made assessment tool. It helps find why a staff problem, like everyone showing up late, keeps happening.

What the research says#

The research on MOs is lively, and some of it questions how the field defines the term.

One group of researchers proposed a revised definition. They suggest MOs be defined as operations that change how effective a reinforcer or punisher is. They add that MOs also change how well cues (discriminative stimuli) control behavior. They also propose dropping a split used in the field: behavior-altering effects versus function-altering effects. In plain terms, that is an MO changing how likely a behavior is versus an MO changing how strong a reinforcer is. Finally, they suggest less emphasis on conditioned MOs (Edwards, Lotfizadeh, & Poling, 2019). That last point is worth knowing, since speakers like Tom Sabo draw on conditioned MOs in practice.

The same research team looked at MOs and escape. They argue some common explanations of escape-maintained behavior are conceptually flawed. Used well, they say, the MO concept can clarify when ending a stimulus works as a reinforcer (Edwards & Poling, 2020).

A lab study in mice tested food and water deprivation. Being without water raised responding for food pellets, and the reverse was also true. The authors conclude that one reward's value can be shaped by several MOs. One MO can also affect several rewards (Lewon, Spurlock, Peters, & Hayes, 2019). This fits Vences's habit of checking both sleep and hunger.

In applied work, a study taught two boys with autism to ask for missing items. It used contrived MOs set up through an interrupted chain, where a needed item is missing from a task. Both boys learned to ask for known missing items and for information about unknown ones (Jessel & Ingvarsson, 2022). This shows arranged MOs can work when they are planned with care.

FAQ#

What is the difference between an establishing operation and an abolishing operation? An establishing operation makes a reinforcer worth more right now, like hunger making food more valuable. An abolishing operation makes it worth less, like being full. Nicole Stewart notes that repeating the same rewards can turn them into an abolishing operation.

How do you identify a motivating operation in a session? Watch what the learner is reaching for, avoiding, or ignoring. Ask about sleep and the last meal, as Michelle Vences does. Brian Middleton suggests adding an MO column to ABC data so emotions and setting events get recorded.

Is it okay to withhold items to create motivation? Arranged MOs can work, and research supports contrived setups for teaching requests. But Kaelynn Partlow warns against shrinking a learner's already small world. Sean Yocum adds that arranged chances with no real motivation rarely succeed.