By Eliminating Aversive Events You Are Eliminating What Establishing Operation

By Eliminating Aversive Events, You Are Eliminating What Establishing Operation?

Understanding establishing operations (EOs) is crucial for effective behavior analysis. EOs are environmental variables that alter the reinforcing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event. Simply put, they make something more reinforcing. One powerful way to alter the reinforcing effectiveness of a stimulus is by manipulating aversive events. By eliminating aversive events, you are eliminating a specific type of establishing operation: the abolishing operation (AO) based on negative reinforcement. Let's delve deeper into this concept.

What is an Establishing Operation (EO)?

Before exploring the relationship between aversive events and EOs, let's establish a firm understanding of what an EO actually is. An EO has two defining effects:

• Value-Altering Effect: An EO increases the reinforcing effectiveness of a specific stimulus. This means the individual is more likely to engage in behaviors that have previously resulted in access to that stimulus. Think of it like this: if you're extremely thirsty (the EO), a glass of water becomes incredibly reinforcing.

• Behavior-Altering Effect: An EO increases the likelihood of behaviors that have previously produced the reinforcing stimulus. Continuing our thirst example, your increased thirst (EO) makes you more likely to engage in behaviors like searching for water, asking for water, or even paying money for water.

Types of Establishing Operations

Several types of EOs exist, each impacting reinforcement in unique ways. Some of the most commonly discussed include:

1. Deprivation:

Deprivation refers to the absence of a reinforcing stimulus for a period of time. The longer the deprivation, the more powerful the reinforcing effect of the stimulus becomes. For example, food deprivation increases the reinforcing value of food.

2. Satiation:

The opposite of deprivation, satiation occurs when an individual has had sufficient access to a reinforcing stimulus, reducing its reinforcing value. If you've just eaten a large meal, the reinforcing effect of food is significantly reduced.

3. Aversive Stimulation:

The presence of an aversive stimulus significantly alters the reinforcing value of other stimuli. Escaping or avoiding an aversive stimulus becomes highly reinforcing. For instance, the presence of a loud noise makes the reinforcing value of silence dramatically higher. This is directly related to negative reinforcement.

4. Pharmacological Effects:

Certain drugs can act as EOs, altering the reinforcing properties of various stimuli. For example, certain drugs can increase the reinforcing effect of specific behaviors or stimuli.

Negative Reinforcement and Aversive Events

Negative reinforcement involves removing an aversive stimulus to increase the likelihood of a behavior. This is a crucial distinction from punishment. In negative reinforcement, the removal of the aversive stimulus increases the likelihood of the behavior; in punishment, it decreases it.

Aversive events are those stimuli that an individual actively tries to avoid or escape. These can range from mild discomfort to severe pain or fear-inducing situations. Examples include:

• Loud noises: A child might learn to cover their ears to avoid the loud noise of a vacuum cleaner (negative reinforcement).
• Bright lights: An individual might seek shade to avoid bright, harsh sunlight (negative reinforcement).
• Social rejection: An individual might modify their behavior to avoid social rejection from peers (negative reinforcement).
• Physical pain: Someone might take medication to alleviate physical pain (negative reinforcement).

Eliminating Aversive Events: The Abolishing Operation (AO)

When you eliminate an aversive event, you are creating an abolishing operation (AO). An AO is the opposite of an EO; it decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of a particular stimulus. In the context of negative reinforcement, eliminating the aversive event removes the contingency that makes escape or avoidance behaviors reinforcing.

For example:

• If you remove the loud noise (aversive event) in the vacuum cleaner example, the behavior of covering the ears becomes less reinforcing because there's nothing to escape or avoid.
• If you provide a consistently comfortable and well-lit environment, the behavior of seeking shade is less reinforcing because the aversive stimulus of bright light is absent.

This highlights the direct link between eliminating aversive events and creating an abolishing operation. By removing the aversive stimulus, the behavior that previously served to avoid or escape that stimulus is no longer as strongly reinforced. The individual’s motivation to engage in that behavior decreases.

Implications for Behavior Modification

Understanding the relationship between aversive events, negative reinforcement, and abolishing operations is critical for designing effective behavior modification strategies. Instead of relying solely on punishment or other aversive techniques, focusing on eliminating or reducing aversive events can lead to more humane and effective interventions.

Here are some practical implications:

• Creating Positive Environments: Designing environments that minimize aversive stimuli can significantly reduce problem behaviors. This might involve reducing noise levels, improving lighting, creating a sense of safety and security, and promoting social inclusion.

• Functional Behavior Assessments: Conducting thorough functional behavior assessments (FBAs) is crucial to identify the function of a behavior. FBAs can help determine if the behavior is maintained by negative reinforcement through the avoidance or escape of an aversive stimulus.

• Antecedent-Based Interventions: Implementing antecedent-based interventions that modify the environment before a behavior occurs can prevent the aversive event from even occurring, thus reducing the likelihood of the problem behavior.

• Positive Reinforcement Strategies: Focus on reinforcing positive alternative behaviors. This can be much more effective than simply trying to suppress negative behaviors through punishment or aversive control.

Ethical Considerations

While eliminating aversive events is crucial for ethical behavior modification, it’s important to address ethical considerations:

• Identifying and addressing true aversive events: It’s crucial to distinguish between genuine aversive events and perceived discomfort. Careful observation and assessment are needed.
• Avoiding unintentional deprivation: Removing aversive events shouldn’t result in the unintentional deprivation of other essential stimuli. For example, removing social interaction as an aversive event should not lead to isolation.
• Considering individual differences: What's aversive to one person may not be to another. Individual preferences and sensitivities must always be considered.

Conclusion

Eliminating aversive events creates an abolishing operation (AO) by reducing the reinforcing effectiveness of behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement. Understanding this relationship is central to developing effective and ethical behavior modification strategies. By focusing on creating positive environments, conducting thorough functional behavior assessments, and implementing antecedent-based interventions, we can significantly reduce the reliance on aversive control and promote more humane and effective approaches to behavior change. Remember, creating positive and supportive environments is a key component of behavior modification, reducing the need for controlling negative behaviors. It's about building a foundation of positive reinforcement and minimizing the need to escape or avoid unpleasant situations. This focus fosters a healthier and more sustainable approach to behavior change. The ultimate goal is not simply suppressing undesirable behaviors, but promoting positive alternatives and fostering a supportive environment where positive behaviors are more likely to occur.