| How They Are Alike | How They Differ |
| They both influence an individual on how to make a decision. | Discriminative stimuli can be defined as can be responding towards or against the antecedent variable after programming or constant stimuli while Motivating operations are internal reinforcers.. |
| They can both push an individual towards either a positive or negative action. | A discriminative stimuli increases the possibility of a response while a motivating operation does not. |
| Motivating operations are internal prompting or feelings while discriminative stimuli are external responses to this. |
It is a warm sunny day. A young couple are out on a walk in the company of their two young children. As they walk past a food court, the man suggests that they stop somewhere within for lunch. BelfioreThey can then go home and relax without the chore of cooking. However the woman suggests that they go for swimming then lunch. After both these activities, then they can go home. The man is opposed to the idea because they have not carried any of the things they need. Going for a swim would require them to buy new swim suits, swimming caps and towels. (Laraway et al, 2014) Additionally, the new venture would need them to take a taxi, since they did not come out with their car. The husband discourages his wife against the swimming idea because it seems to cost more than what he had budgeted. Unfortunately, the children are already excited about the swimming idea after they over heard their parents’ conversation. After some complaints and begging from the children, the man gives in to the swimming idea.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This scenario brings out several antecedent variables. The first is the motivating operation of hunger. This creates some level of discomfort that he wants to resolve. During an afternoon walk, the man experiences hunger. His automatic response is to suggest that they a meal together. The presence of a food court in the vicinity could also be the reason why the man comes up with the idea. The presence of a food court can be explained as the antecedent variable of discriminative stimuli (Poling et al, 2017). The man may have waited for them to go home and eat, if they had not walked by the food court. On the other hand, the woman is experiencing boredom and she is uncomfortable because of the heat. This is her motivating operation. This need is greater than the desire to satisfy her hunger. In this case, we assume that the woman and children are hungry as well. Now the family has two options. They could either go home and relax in a cool house, or they could go swimming and kill the monotony. The woman's suggestion can be described as a conditioned motivating operation. Her swimming suggestion comes about because she is programmed to swim on such afternoons. Swimming can therefore be described as a conditioned motivating operation. This arises when a neutral stimuli is combined with an unconditional motivation operation. Boredom is a neutral stimuli while the hot weather is an unconditional motivation operation (Mazur, 2016).
Motivating operation is not always programmable. People will react to different situations differently because of different temperaments, experiences and comfort levels. An example is a group of friends who attend the same class, Ashley, Terry and Jason. They all encounter a question in class about statistics. The three students each struggle with the concepts although Terry is having a harder time with the concepts compared to her friends. During a class session, the instructor completes the day's work load fifteen minutes earlier than scheduled. She then asks the class to feel free to ask any questions or make any suggestions that they may have. Ashley immediately asks if the instructor can go over a certain module that was especially difficult for her. Jason requests for an electronic copy of the classes proceedings. Terry on the other hand, stays behind after everyone else is gone so that she can have a private consultation with the instructor (Belfiore et al, 2016)
This situation illustrate three different responses to the same occurrence. In this case, the Instructor's action of opening up the class to allow for any inputs from the student can be considered as a motivating operation. This move internally prompts the students to take action that could help them in their given struggles. Each student responds with a different action. Ashley is confident that she will get help from the instructor. In the past, she has made requests that have met positive responses. Her discriminative stimuli is therefore programmed in taking help when it is offered. Jason's discriminative stimuli is seeking for information to fill the gaps in the knowledge that he already has. Terry does not seek help in public for fear of humiliation or public disgrace. Her discriminative stimuli is seeking for help in private. All these responses are driven by different discriminative stimuli based on their experience and perception (Witts et al., 2016). These responses are due to either negative or positive reinforcement that they may have experienced in the past. If the instructor responds differently to their requests, then the students may change their reactions.
The last scenario will demonstrate that a discriminative stimuli is different from an action. A discriminative stimuli is more of the reason behind the action. That being said, a discriminative stimuli may be the reason why a person chooses not to take action. The lack of action can be perceived to be the behaviour resulting from the discriminative stimuli. A woman boards a bus so that she can go somewhere. She sits down next to her six year old son who begins to play with the window. She forbids him from doing this. The child responds by crying loudly and begins to hit his head on the window (Ivy et al., 2016). The mother then reaches out to him by giving him a fidget cube. However, between the time that it takes her to find the cube in her bag, they have caught the attention of a middle aged man seated nearby. The man begins to shout at the woman and accuses of having poor parenting skills. When she hands the boy the puzzle, the man shouts even more, implying that the boy's actions are motivated by his mother's pampering. Once the boy settles down, his mother takes out a book and begins to read it. She does not respond to the man in any way.
This scenario shows two aspects of behaviour. The first is the child's behaviour. The boy uses any act of misconduct as a way to get what he wants from the mother. The boy’s actions are a motivating operation. His mother responds by trying to stop his behaviour. This is discriminative stimuli. The boy's counter response is another form of discriminative stimuli which the boy now uses. This is because her response reinforces his actions even when the original stimuli is absent. The mother then takes action to curb the situation. Her action to stop the boy's tantrum reinforces his motivation to misbehave (King & Hayes, 2016). The second aspect is the woman's response to the middle aged man. She ignores him completely. However, her response is driven by the presence of other people. The fear of further humiliation is her discriminative stimuli. This the factor that drives her silence (Lewon & Hayes, 2014). The silence of other passengers is because of the discriminative stimuli of indifference. Everyone chooses to mind their own business despite the tension present and the various emotions it may elicit.
References
Belfiore, P. J., Kitchen, T., & Lee, D. L. (2016). Functional analysis of maladaptive behaviors: Rule as a transitive conditioned motivating operation. Research in developmental disabilities , 49 , 100-107.
Ivy, J. W., Neef, N. A., Meindl, J. N., & Miller, N. (2016). A Preliminary Examination of Motivating Operation and Reinforcer Class Interaction. Behavioral Interventions , 31 (2), 180-194.
King, J. E., & Hayes, L. J. (2016). The role of discriminative stimuli on response patterns in resurgence. The Psychological Record , 66 (3), 325-335.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Olson, R., Becker, B., & Poling, A. (2014). The motivating operations concept: current status and critical response. The Psychological Record , 64 (3), 601-623.
Lewon, M., & Hayes, L. J. (2014). Toward an analysis of emotions as products of motivating operations. The Psychological Record , 64 (4), 813-825.
Mazur, J. E. (2016). Learning " behavior . Routledge.
Poling, A., Lotfizadeh, A., & Edwards, T. L. (2017). Predicting reinforcement: Utility of the motivating operations concept. The Behavior Analyst , 40 (1), 49-56.
Witts, B. N., Rzeszutek, M. J., & Dahlberg, K. (2016). Reel outcomes as discriminative stimuli: A case for reporting single subject data. Analysis of Gambling Behavior , 10 (1), 3.
