Behavioral Analysis Motivating Operation

Question: Discuss bout the Behavioral Analysis for Motivating Operation. Answer: Introduction: Negative reinforcement originated from the theory of operant conditioning by B.F Skinner. The behaviors of the individuals are streamlined by either removing or stopping the motivating factor(Iwata, 1987). Similarly, it can be implemented by adopting aversive stimulus whereby and the individual is involved in the form of the discomfort which may be either psychological or physical. There are aspects which are responsible for maintaining behavior which is maintained by negative reinforcement. Motivating Operation (MO) has been proved as one the factors behind the success of the negatively reinforced behavior. According to Iwata (1987), motivating operation changes a certain stimulus that acts as a source of punishment or reinforcement. Again, it interferes with the probability of the behaviors that are linked to negative reinforcement. Alternatively, motivating operation gets rid of the avoidance of a particular stimulus and instead arouses historical effects associated with such beha viors. Besides, the Iwata findings other studies which have been conducted by him have found that motivating operation is very influential in shaping the behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement or punishment. One of the studies by Carr, Blakeley-Smith (2006) has found that motivating operations has a very impactful influence on operant relationships and thus contribute significant those who it is applied to. Punishment Punishment, most of the times, is applied to make people avoid the repetition of the wrong deeds done. Research findings have indicated that punishment may lead to a reduction of the unwanted behavior and in other scenarios it may result in total suppression of the same. However, according to Lerman Vorndran (2002), the continued use of punishment has contributed to eruption various punishment methods in several fields. It the emergence of the various forms of punishment which brings this paper to question whether punishment has either changed, solidified or has become more solidified. From the analysis of the Lerman and Vorndran, it can be argued that the forms of punishment have changed. This is because today people apply various forms of punishment as a way of eliminating a particular behavior. For example, ranging the organizational managers to the teachers in the classroom they will adopt to the punishment techniques that will ensure employees and the students respectively are corrected for engaging in indiscipline issues. Again, in the modern world, the forms of punishment are rapidly changing from the physical ones to the psychological ones. Human rights protection has become a fundamental aspect hence leading to the elimination of the punishments which may be deemed inhumane. Therefore, this paper argues that punishment changed and has neither solidified nor become more ambiguous. Ethical Considerations Treatment Situation without the patient or Guardians Consent It becomes difficult and challenging at some scenarios for both the individuals and professionals to act ethically. This means that at some time one may found himself or herself in an ethical dilemma in choosing either to act for what is good or for what is bad. First and foremost, for a medical professional, he or she may opt to provide treatment to the patient without the consent of either the victim or the guardian. For instance, take a scenario whereby an individual has been involved in a tragic accident which has left him or her unconscious with no guardian at bay. In this situation, the victim will require an emergency treatment save his or her life. This treatment is fully justifiable and can be explained to the individual once he or she recovers. Another scenario whereby the patient can be treated without his consent as well as that of the guardian is where the disclosure of ailment the patient is suffering from will result into severe threat on the patients well-being. This happens because the disclosure of the same may result to emotional or psychological distraction of the victim. Again, the exception of the consent may apply whereby the patient is in operation process, and there arises an emergency to carry out an extra operation procedure. According to Hartman Liang (1999) the court in the case of Canterbury v Spence ruled out that this exception in medical field is acceptable and justifiable. Therefore, the treatment of the patient without his or her consent or that of the guardian can be fully justified. References Carr, E. G., Blakeley-Smith, A. (2006). Classroom intervention for the illness-related problem. Behavior Modification, 30(6), 901-924. Iwata, B. A. (1987). Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis -An emerging technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20(4), 361-378. Lerman, D. C., Vorndran, C. M. (2002). N The Status Of Knowledge For Using Punishment: Implications For Treating Behavior Disorders. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(4), 431464.