Identify Examples of Motivating Operations
If you’re a BCBA, RBT, or clinician working in applied behavior analysis, you’ve likely encountered the term “motivating operation” during case conceptualization or functional behavior assessment. Yet recognizing and distinguishing a motivating operation from similar concepts—like reinforcers or discriminative stimuli—is one of the trickiest skills in ABA practice. This article will help you develop that skill by breaking down what motivating operations are, why they matter, and how to spot them in real clinical scenarios.
A motivating operation (MO) is an environmental variable or condition that does two things at once: it changes how much a consequence is wanted right now, and it changes how hard (or how often) a person will work to get that consequence. Understanding this distinction can transform how you write behavior plans and predict when problem behavior will spike.
What Is a Motivating Operation?
A motivating operation is best understood as a temporary state or event that alters the value of a consequence in the moment. Unlike a reinforcer, which is the consequence itself, an MO changes how powerful that consequence is. Food is not always equally reinforcing. When you haven’t eaten all day, food becomes far more valuable and motivating. When you’ve just finished a large meal, that same food may hold almost no appeal.
The defining feature of an MO is that it has two distinct effects. First, it alters the value of a consequence—either making it more desirable or less desirable. Second, it alters the current likelihood of behaviors that have produced that consequence in the past. These effects happen simultaneously and in the moment, which makes them powerful levers for intervention.
Consider a quick example: A child hasn’t had access to their favorite tablet for three hours (deprivation). The tablet becomes more valuable, and the child is now more likely to ask for it, earn points toward it, or negotiate with you about it. Hours later, after unrestricted tablet time, the child shows little interest in earning or requesting it (satiation). The value has dropped, and so has the frequency of tablet-seeking behavior.
Establishing Operations and Abolishing Operations
Behavior analysts use two key terms to describe the direction of change an MO creates.
An establishing operation (EO) increases the value of a consequence and increases the frequency of behaviors that produce it. Hunger, thirst, cold, and lack of attention are all examples. They make a consequence “worth working for” in that moment. When you’re thirsty, drinking water becomes more valuable, and you’re more likely to walk to a water fountain or ask for a drink.
An abolishing operation (AO) decreases the value of a consequence and decreases the frequency of behaviors that produce it. Satiation is the most common AO. After eating a large meal, food’s value drops, and you stop ordering appetizers or snacking. These operations “abolish” the motivation temporarily—they lower the perceived value and the drive to pursue the outcome.
Both EOs and AOs are temporary states, not permanent traits. A child may be hungry at 11:45 a.m., making snacks highly reinforcing, but fully satiated by 12:30 p.m. and indifferent to them.
How Motivating Operations Differ from Discriminative Stimuli and Reinforcers
This distinction is critical and often a source of confusion on exams and in case discussions.
A discriminative stimulus (SD) signals that reinforcement is available for a specific behavior if that behavior occurs. An SD does not change the value of the reinforcer; it simply advertises that reinforcement is on offer. A green traffic light is an SD—it signals that driving forward will be reinforced with progress. A “Help Wanted” sign at a restaurant signals that applying for a job may result in employment. Neither changes how much you value the outcome; they just tell you when it’s available.
By contrast, an MO changes how much you want the outcome in the moment. Your hunger (MO) makes food more valuable; the “Open” sign at a café (SD) simply signals that food is available. Both may influence whether you enter the café, but they work through different mechanisms.
A reinforcer is the consequence itself—the thing that follows a behavior and increases its likelihood in the future. Food, praise, access to toys, and social attention are all potential reinforcers. An MO doesn’t create the reinforcer; it changes how effective the reinforcer is.
Unconditioned and Conditioned Motivating Operations
Some MOs are unconditioned—they have motivational power built in, without learning. Hunger, pain, extreme temperatures, and the need for air are unconditioned MOs. A child doesn’t have to learn that food is valuable when hungry; that relationship is biological.
Conditioned motivating operations (CMOs) acquire their power through learning and experience. Suppose a child needs a key card to access a locked door where their favorite toy is kept. The key card isn’t inherently valuable, but it becomes powerfully motivating in that context because it’s associated with access to the toy. In a different building with no locked doors, that same key card would have no motivational power at all.
CMOs are crucial in real-world ABA because so much of human motivation is learned. Money, grades, badges, and approval are conditioned reinforcers that acquire their power through our learning history. Their value as motivators rises and falls based on context and circumstance.
Why Identifying Motivating Operations Matters in Practice
Spotting MOs transforms assessment and intervention. During a functional behavior assessment, if you identify that a child’s aggression spikes when they haven’t had breakfast (an EO for attention or sensory input), your intervention strategy shifts. Rather than waiting for problem behavior and then responding, you can adjust the morning routine—ensure breakfast happens, offer movement breaks, or schedule preferred activities earlier—and prevent the escalation altogether.
Misidentifying or ignoring MOs can lead to ineffective or even harmful plans. A practitioner who doesn’t recognize that a child’s task refusal is driven by fatigue (an AO making reinforcement less valuable) might double down on rewards when the real issue is that the child needs rest. A clinician who doesn’t acknowledge an EO—such as deprivation of social attention—might create an intervention that inadvertently reinforces problem behavior by providing attention contingent on compliance.
From an ethical standpoint, understanding MOs helps you reduce coercion and unnecessary restriction. When you modify an MO through minimally intrusive means—such as providing timely access to preferred items or scheduling meaningful breaks—you honor client dignity and autonomy in ways that harsh deprivation-based strategies do not.
Key Features of a Motivating Operation
MOs have several defining characteristics that distinguish them from other antecedent events.
They change the reinforcer value in real time. An MO does not make a consequence into a reinforcer; it makes an existing reinforcer more or less powerful right now. The tablet was always a reinforcer for this child; deprivation just makes it more powerful in the moment.
They evoke or abate behavior in the moment. Unlike SDs, which set the occasion for behavior to occur, MOs actively increase or decrease the likelihood that the behavior will happen. The child isn’t just more able to ask for the tablet (SD); the child is more motivated to ask for it (MO).
They can be produced in multiple ways. Deprivation, satiation, emotional states, environmental conditions, and learned associations can all function as MOs. This flexibility means MOs show up in countless forms across different clients and settings.
They are temporary. Hunger passes once you eat; satiation fades as your body digests and time passes. This temporary quality is why MO-based interventions are dynamic—what motivates someone at 9 a.m. may not motivate them at noon.
When You Would Use This in Practice
MOs become relevant at several key decision points in clinical work.
During functional behavior assessments, you actively look for antecedent conditions that change how motivated the client is to engage in problem behavior or appropriate skills. You ask: “When does this behavior happen most often?” and “What has changed in the environment just before the behavior?” Deprivation, satiation, transitions, and predictable environmental cues are all patterns to investigate. A functional behavior assessment that ignores MOs is incomplete and leads to weaker hypotheses.
When writing behavior intervention plans, you use your understanding of MOs to design antecedent interventions. If a child’s elopement is driven by a need for escape from demands (an MO), your plan might include frequent breaks, choice in task sequencing, or movement opportunities. If aggressive behavior spikes when the child is hungry (an EO for food or attention), you adjust meal timing and provide supervised snack access. These interventions prevent the escalation rather than just managing the fallout.
In crisis planning and safety protocols, identifying the MOs that make severe behavior most likely allows you to prepare and prevent. A child who escalates when they haven’t had sensory input for 30 minutes can be scheduled for movement breaks before crisis mode. A teen whose self-injury intensifies when they’re isolated (deprivation of social contact) can be paired with a preferred peer during high-risk times.
When teaching new skills, you leverage MOs to increase engagement without coercion. A child who is slightly hungry (EO for food) is more motivated to participate in a meal preparation activity. A teenager who has been deprived of device time is more motivated to complete schoolwork if a tablet break is the reinforcer. This is antecedent manipulation at its best—changing the environment to make learning and effort more naturally appealing.
Real-World Examples in ABA
Scenario 1: Deprivation and Mand Behavior
A second-grader eats lunch at 12:00 p.m., then has no access to snacks until after-school care at 3:00 p.m.—three hours without food. By 2:50 p.m., the child’s requests for snacks skyrocket. They ask repeatedly, negotiate with staff, and work hard to earn snack-based rewards. The same snack that the child ignores right after lunch becomes highly motivating when deprivation is present. This is a textbook EO: time without food increases the snack’s value and evokes snack-seeking behavior.
Scenario 2: Satiation and Decreased Toy Play
An elementary student receives unlimited access to a preferred fidget toy during a 30-minute free-play session. For the first ten minutes, they play enthusiastically. By 20 minutes, they set the toy down, glance at it occasionally, and drift to other activities. By 30 minutes, they ignore it entirely and prefer to interact with peers. The toy hasn’t changed; the child’s access has. Satiation (the AO) decreased the toy’s value and abated the motivated play behavior. This is why unlimited access to a reinforcer backfires—the MO shifts, and the reinforcer loses its power.
Scenario 3: Conditioned Motivating Operation
A classroom uses a token economy where students earn points redeemable for a 15-minute break. The first time a student earns points, they’re marginally interested. Over weeks, the points themselves become motivating—the student works harder, asks about their point balance, and shows visible excitement when earning points. The points have acquired conditioned reinforcer power through association with the break. Now, showing a point card (a CMO) increases the student’s motivation to complete work in the moment, even if the break won’t happen for hours.
Examples From Everyday Life
MOs govern daily behavior far outside clinical settings.
Cold weather is an MO. Running outside in winter makes warmth far more valuable. You’re motivated to put on a coat, close windows, and seek shelter. The same coat on a warm summer day is not motivating—it’s a burden. The coat didn’t change; the MO did.
Time pressure creates a CMO. A store puts up a sign reading “Limited time only—40% off today.” Suddenly, an item you were casually considering becomes more valuable. You decide quicker and buy more decisively. The discount didn’t change, but the temporal signal (CMO) changed your motivation and behavior in the moment.
Fatigue is an AO. An exhausted person is less motivated to go to the gym, attend social events, or engage in hobbies, even though those activities were reinforcing yesterday. The activities haven’t changed; the person’s state has. The AO has reduced their value and the likelihood of seeking them out.
Common Mistakes and Misconceptions
Treating all antecedents as MOs. Not every event before a behavior is an MO. An SD signals that reinforcement is available but doesn’t change the value of that reinforcement. A classroom bell (SD) signals that class is starting; it doesn’t change how much the student values learning or socializing. This confusion leads clinicians to misidentify the function of behavior or design ineffective interventions.
Confusing MO with SD. This is perhaps the most common mix-up. Remember: MO changes value; SD signals availability. Practice distinguishing them by asking, “Does this event change how much the child wants the outcome, or does it just signal when the outcome is available?”
Assuming MOs are only biological. Hunger and thirst are MOs, but so are learned signals, emotional states, and social contexts. A child who has only ever received attention during problem behavior learns to seek attention by misbehaving. The opportunity to misbehave becomes a CMO for attention. Overlooking these conditioned MOs can leave you blind to powerful motivators.
Creating harmful deprivation to increase motivation. This is an ethical and practical mistake. Depriving a child of water to make a drink reinforcing, or withholding bathroom breaks to create motivation for compliance, is harmful and unnecessary. Use natural deprivation (the child hasn’t had lunch yet), offer choices to increase intrinsic motivation, or find alternative reinforcers. Manufactured deprivation is ethically problematic and often backfires.
Attributing all behavior change to MO alone. MOs are one piece of the puzzle. Other antecedents (SDs, task difficulty, peer influences), consequences, and the client’s skill level all matter. A comprehensive assessment looks at the whole picture.
Ethical Considerations When Managing Motivating Operations
When you identify an MO that’s driving problem behavior, your job is to manage it ethically and with the client’s wellbeing as the first priority.
Deprivation-based interventions require extreme caution. If your plan relies on depriving a child of sleep, food, water, attention, or movement to create an MO, stop and consider alternatives. The BACB Guidelines for Responsible Conduct underscore that practitioners must protect client welfare and autonomy. Deprivation can be harmful and is often unnecessary.
Always ask: Is there a less restrictive way? If a child’s behavior increases when they lack attention (deprivation MO), the solution is to increase attention before the problem behavior occurs—not to withhold it and then use attention as a reward for compliance. If a child is more compliant after a snack (satiation AO reducing food-seeking escape behavior), the solution is to provide snacks as a routine part of the schedule—not to starve them into cooperation.
Document your MO analysis and safeguards explicitly. If your intervention involves modifying an MO (e.g., scheduling frequent breaks to reduce fatigue, providing snacks on a set schedule to prevent hunger-driven behavior), write it down. Include what you’re modifying, why, and what safety measures you’ve put in place. This transparency protects the client and makes your clinical reasoning auditable.
Seek informed consent and supervision. If an intervention involves any form of deprivation or restriction, discuss it with the client (or their guardian) in plain language, explain the rationale, and get buy-in. Consult with your supervisor or a senior clinician.
Documenting Motivating Operations in Functional Behavior Assessment
A strong FBA captures MOs clearly and links them to behavior change.
In the antecedent analysis section, describe the MO explicitly. For example: “Client had not eaten since 6 a.m. and was without structured activity for 45 minutes (deprivation MOs)” is more useful than “client was hungry.” Specify the type: Is this an EO or AO? Is it unconditioned or conditioned?
In the hypothesis statement, explicitly link the MO to the behavior and its function. A complete hypothesis might read: “When the client has been without preferred sensory input for 30+ minutes (EO) and is given a non-preferred task (SD), they engage in self-stimulatory behavior to access automatic sensory reinforcement.” This shows how the MO sets the occasion and elevates motivation.
In your data collection, track the state or condition you suspect is functioning as an MO. Note the time of day, prior activities, access to food or attention, or other relevant conditions. Over time, patterns emerge: Does problem behavior cluster when the child is hungry? After transitions? When tired? This data guides intervention design.
In the behavior intervention plan, translate your MO findings into concrete strategies. If deprivation of physical activity is an MO, schedule movement breaks. If satiation is an AO reducing motivation for work, use shorter work intervals and frequent reinforcement. If a conditioned signal (like seeing a preferred person) is a CMO, use it strategically—maybe schedule time with that person contingent on completing independent work first.
Practice Questions to Test Your Understanding
Question 1: Identifying MO vs. SD
A student is lining up for lunch at 11:45 a.m. The cafeteria door is open, and the smell of food drifts into the hallway. Which of the following best describes the lunch smell?
A) An establishing operation increasing the value of food B) A discriminative stimulus signaling food is available C) Both A and B D) A reinforcer that follows compliance
Correct answer: C. The smell of food serves both functions. The smell increases the student’s hunger (EO for food, increasing its value) and signals that lunch is available. Both MO and SD are at work.
Question 2: Recognizing Abolishing Operations
A student has been playing with their favorite video game for 90 minutes without interruption. Their engagement is now noticeably lower—they’re playing passively, sometimes looking away, and taking longer breaks. Which MO effect best explains this change?
A) An establishing operation evoking behavior B) An abolishing operation abating behavior C) A discriminative stimulus signaling reinforcement D) A conditioned reinforcer acquiring more power
Correct answer: B. After extended access to the video game, satiation (an AO) has reduced the game’s value, and the student’s motivated play behavior has decreased.
Question 3: Distinguishing UMO from CMO
A young child becomes more motivated to request water after not drinking for three hours. Is this an unconditioned or conditioned motivating operation?
A) Unconditioned—thirst is a biological state B) Conditioned—the child has learned through experience when water is valuable C) Both equally D) Neither—it’s a discriminative stimulus
Correct answer: A. Thirst is an unconditioned MO; the child doesn’t have to learn that water is valuable when thirsty. The relationship between deprivation and thirst-driven behavior is innate.
Question 4: MO Effects in Intervention Design
During an FBA, you discover that a student’s off-task behavior increases most often when they’re seated away from their peer group (social deprivation MO). Which intervention best addresses this MO ethically?
A) Keep them isolated until behavior improves, then allow peer time B) Schedule frequent peer interaction proactively throughout the day C) Use peer time only as a reward for compliance D) Acknowledge the MO but take no action; focus on consequences
Correct answer: B. Proactive peer access reduces the deprivation MO and the motivation to misbehave for peer contact. This is a least-restrictive, antecedent-based strategy that respects the student’s need for social connection.
Question 5: Documenting MOs
When writing an FBA, you identify that a client engages in pica (eating non-food items) most often between meals. Which statement should appear in your FBA antecedent analysis?
A) “Client engages in pica” B) “Client had not eaten for 3+ hours (food deprivation EO); pica behavior increased” C) “Pica is maintained by oral sensory reinforcement” D) “Client is noncompliant with meal schedules”
Correct answer: B. This statement clearly names the MO (deprivation), its type (EO), the duration, and the observed effect (increased pica behavior). It sets up a hypothesis and guides intervention.
Key Takeaways
A motivating operation is a temporary condition or event that changes both the value of a consequence and the immediate frequency of behaviors that produce it. The two types—establishing operations and abolishing operations—increase or decrease that value and motivation, respectively. Recognizing MOs allows you to design smarter, more humane interventions by modifying the environment before problem behavior occurs rather than only reacting after.
The most critical distinction to master is MO versus SD. An MO changes how much something is wanted right now; an SD signals when it’s available. Confusing these leads to weak hypotheses and ineffective plans. Remembering that MOs can be unconditioned (hunger, cold) or conditioned (learned associations) helps you catch subtle but powerful motivators in complex cases.
Ethically, your responsibility is to identify MOs and manage them in the least restrictive way possible. This means providing access to appropriate consequences proactively, scheduling meaningful activities, and using learning history to your advantage—not manufacturing deprivation to force compliance. Well-documented MO analysis in your FBA and BIP demonstrates professional rigor and protects your client.
As you review your current cases and assessments, ask yourself: Have I identified the MOs that make problem behavior more likely? Am I designing interventions that modify those MOs humanely? Is my documentation clear enough that another clinician could understand my reasoning? These reflections will sharpen your assessment and planning skills and lead to more effective and ethical outcomes for the clients you serve.
