title: An Investigation into Establishing (Motivating) Operations

authors: Jackson, Surrey Merryn Kate

subjects: establishing operations

abstract: Motivating Operations (MOs) are a fundamental concept in behavioural psychology. Despite this, empirical research into MOs is lacking. The overall aim of this thesis is to contribute to the experimental literature base for MOs.
Experiment 2.1 used an already published video analysis methodology to assess the morphology of food motivated pecks made to a computer screen by hens, after the hens had been trained to emit the peck using either an autoshaping or handshaping procedure. The intention of this was to then be able to use the video analysis to assess the effect of altering two MOs related to two different reinforcers (e.g., food and water) at one time, on morphology. The study showed that both methods produced similarly formed pecks despite the variability inherent in the handshaping procedure. It was then concluded it is the nature of the reinforcer that gives rise to morphology not the autoshaping procedure per se which gives rise to a particular form of elicited responses.
The aim of Experiment 3.1 and 3.2 was to develop a procedure for restricting access to water in laying hens, in order to motivate them sufficiently to respond for water reinforcers. Experiment 3.1 assessed the effect that gradually decreasing time and amount of water access had on food-restricted hens’ water consumption and health. It was found that hens could be restricted to one hr access of water (restricted to the maximum amount that hens would consume when access was ad libitum) without adverse effects to health being apparent. However, when the hens were subsequently exposed to FR schedules with a low response requirement in Experiment 3.2, they did not respond consistently. This indicated that the level of restriction was insufficient to motivate responding and this finding, combined with the difficulty of obtaining ethical approval, meant that the proposed experiments utilising water deprivation as an MO had to be abandoned.
Experiment 4.1 used the autoshaping paradigm to assess the acquisition of food motivated pecks to a stimulus, at two different levels of bodyweight (75% and 95%). An infra-red screen was used to analyse performance separately from learning effects by examining activity levels (location and amount of pecks). It was found that that higher numbers of effective pecks were made by hens maintained at 75% free-feeding bodyweight than hens maintained at 95% (different MO conditions). There were also higher levels of ineffective pecks in the 75% group.
Experiment 5.1 investigated relative preference for stimuli correlated with different MO conditions: high deprivation (no pre-feeding), or low deprivation (pre-feeding), when subjects were maintained at either 75% or 95% of free-feeding bodyweight. The results showed that 6/10 hens demonstrated an increased preference for the stimulus paired with high deprivation conditions (no pre-feeding) when measured by log ratios of responses, and had faster response rates on this stimulus. Overall, the 75% bodyweight hens had faster response rates than the 95% hens (as in Experiment 4.1), and 8/10 hens responded faster on the stimulus that was paired with no pre-feeding. It was also found, as per Experiment 4.1, that higher numbers of effective pecks were made by hens maintained at 75% free-feeding bodyweight than hens maintained at 95% (different MO conditions).
Experiments 6.1 and 6.2 extended the findings of the thesis thus far in that concurrent VI VI schedules were used to assess the effect of bodyweight and pre-feeding as MOs on steady state responding. In total 16 conditions were run exposing hens to three different VI pairs: VI-12, VI-60 (5:1); VI-20, VI-20 (1:1); and VI-60, VI-12 (1:5). Bodyweight values of 85%, 95%, 100%, and 85% with pre-feeding of 40 cc wheat delivered 40 minutes prior to experimental sessions were manipulated between hens finishing a series of the three VI pairs. It was found that 4/6 hens had higher absolute and relative response rates when bodyweight was made lower. For 3/6 of these hens, increasing bodyweight increased sensitivity as measured by the parameter a; this was more distinct when the Generalised Matching Law was applied to response rather than time locations for these hens. Frequency distributions of IRTs showed that for the hens that tended to show increasing sensitivity as bodyweights increased there were more IRTs in bins greater than 0.4 s. This was reflected on the log-survivor plots as the limbs were shallower when bodyweights were higher, indicating that more between-bout responses were occurring. It was also found that pre-feeding increased sensitivity as measured by the parameter a for all hens; this was more noticeable when the GML was applied to response rather than time allocations. Although overall response rates tended to resemble those for the 85% bodyweight condition and remain higher than the 95% and 100% bodyweight conditions, the distribution of left and right response rates showed that hens matched better to the prevailing reinforcer rates when they were pre-fed, than when they were not pre-fed.
Overall, the main findings were: (1) that reducing bodyweights increased amounts of species-specific behaviour; and (2) that reducing bodyweight causes increases in response rate. These findings could explain why changes in preference for stimuli paired with high levels of deprivation are observed during SDVL procedures, and why increased sensitivity to available reinforcement at lower levels of deprivation found in studies utilising the GML have been observed in previous studies. These findings contribute to the empirical data informing the behavioural treatment of motivation and have applied implications. Reinforcement and punishment procedures such as extinction or differential reinforcement of alternative behaviours may no longer be necessary when MOs are manipulated.

text: An Investigation into Establishing (Motivating) Operations Motivating Operations (MOs) are a fundamental concept in behavioural psychology. Despite this, empirical research into MOs is lacking. The overall aim of this thesis is to contribute to the experimental literature base for MOs.
Experiment 2.1 used an already published video analysis methodology to assess the morphology of food motivated pecks made to a computer screen by hens, after the hens had been trained to emit the peck using either an autoshaping or handshaping procedure. The intention of this was to then be able to use the video analysis to assess the effect of altering two MOs related to two different reinforcers (e.g., food and water) at one time, on morphology. The study showed that both methods produced similarly formed pecks despite the variability inherent in the handshaping procedure. It was then concluded it is the nature of the reinforcer that gives rise to morphology not the autoshaping procedure per se which gives rise to a particular form of elicited responses.
The aim of Experiment 3.1 and 3.2 was to develop a procedure for restricting access to water in laying hens, in order to motivate them sufficiently to respond for water reinforcers. Experiment 3.1 assessed the effect that gradually decreasing time and amount of water access had on food-restricted hens’ water consumption and health. It was found that hens could be restricted to one hr access of water (restricted to the maximum amount that hens would consume when access was ad libitum) without adverse effects to health being apparent. However, when the hens were subsequently exposed to FR schedules with a low response requirement in Experiment 3.2, they did not respond consistently. This indicated that the level of restriction was insufficient to motivate responding and this finding, combined with the difficulty of obtaining ethical approval, meant that the proposed experiments utilising water deprivation as an MO had to be abandoned.
Experiment 4.1 used the autoshaping paradigm to assess the acquisition of food motivated pecks to a stimulus, at two different levels of bodyweight (75% and 95%). An infra-red screen was used to analyse performance separately from learning effects by examining activity levels (location and amount of pecks). It was found that that higher numbers of effective pecks were made by hens maintained at 75% free-feeding bodyweight than hens maintained at 95% (different MO conditions). There were also higher levels of ineffective pecks in the 75% group.
Experiment 5.1 investigated relative preference for stimuli correlated with different MO conditions: high deprivation (no pre-feeding), or low deprivation (pre-feeding), when subjects were maintained at either 75% or 95% of free-feeding bodyweight. The results showed that 6/10 hens demonstrated an increased preference for the stimulus paired with high deprivation conditions (no pre-feeding) when measured by log ratios of responses, and had faster response rates on this stimulus. Overall, the 75% bodyweight hens had faster response rates than the 95% hens (as in Experiment 4.1), and 8/10 hens responded faster on the stimulus that was paired with no pre-feeding. It was also found, as per Experiment 4.1, that higher numbers of effective pecks were made by hens maintained at 75% free-feeding bodyweight than hens maintained at 95% (different MO conditions).
Experiments 6.1 and 6.2 extended the findings of the thesis thus far in that concurrent VI VI schedules were used to assess the effect of bodyweight and pre-feeding as MOs on steady state responding. In total 16 conditions were run exposing hens to three different VI pairs: VI-12, VI-60 (5:1); VI-20, VI-20 (1:1); and VI-60, VI-12 (1:5). Bodyweight values of 85%, 95%, 100%, and 85% with pre-feeding of 40 cc wheat delivered 40 minutes prior to experimental sessions were manipulated between hens finishing a series of the three VI pairs. It was found that 4/6 hens had higher absolute and relative response rates when bodyweight was made lower. For 3/6 of these hens, increasing bodyweight increased sensitivity as measured by the parameter a; this was more distinct when the Generalised Matching Law was applied to response rather than time locations for these hens. Frequency distributions of IRTs showed that for the hens that tended to show increasing sensitivity as bodyweights increased there were more IRTs in bins greater than 0.4 s. This was reflected on the log-survivor plots as the limbs were shallower when bodyweights were higher, indicating that more between-bout responses were occurring. It was also found that pre-feeding increased sensitivity as measured by the parameter a for all hens; this was more noticeable when the GML was applied to response rather than time allocations. Although overall response rates tended to resemble those for the 85% bodyweight condition and remain higher than the 95% and 100% bodyweight conditions, the distribution of left and right response rates showed that hens matched better to the prevailing reinforcer rates when they were pre-fed, than when they were not pre-fed.
Overall, the main findings were: (1) that reducing bodyweights increased amounts of species-specific behaviour; and (2) that reducing bodyweight causes increases in response rate. These findings could explain why changes in preference for stimuli paired with high levels of deprivation are observed during SDVL procedures, and why increased sensitivity to available reinforcement at lower levels of deprivation found in studies utilising the GML have been observed in previous studies. These findings contribute to the empirical data informing the behavioural treatment of motivation and have applied implications. Reinforcement and punishment procedures such as extinction or differential reinforcement of alternative behaviours may no longer be necessary when MOs are manipulated.

year: 2017

title: Pro-environmental behaviour change for nature: Empirical and theoretical evidence from a field experiment in Aotearoa New Zealand

authors: Maris, Robert David Colin

subjects: Environmental economics

abstract: Individual behaviour change is a crucial component of our response to current environmental challenges and over recent years, a growing body of literature has focussed on the drivers and levers of pro-environmental behaviours. However, scholars have noted there is a considerable shortage of behavioural science research that focuses on behaviours that directly impact nature and biodiversity. This is concerning, given the enormous value populations place on nature, the fundamental role nature plays in society and because nature is declining rapidly. 
In this thesis, we focus on understanding volunteering for nature restoration groups, which we show is an under-researched behaviour in the literature. It also has relatively high potential to deliver positive impacts for biodiversity and nature. We start by developing a simple generalisable theoretical model that suggests three main factors may be inhibiting the uptake of volunteering for nature – uncertainty, inaccuracy and high behavioural adjustment costs. We use this model to inform the design and hypotheses for a large field experiment in Aotearoa New Zealand where we aim to answer the following questions:
How can we increase volunteering for nature restoration groups? What are the effects of volunteering for the first-time on future volunteering behaviour? How does volunteering affect other important outcomes of interest, like environmental identity, locus of control beliefs and wellbeing?
Our field experiment has two stages. In stage one, we randomly assign first-time volunteers (those who are not already engaged in nature volunteering) to treatment groups to assess the impact of a nudge, a supermarket voucher incentive and a nudge and incentive combined on volunteering behaviour. We find that a $50 NZD supermarket incentive increases attendance rates at volunteering events and commitment rates to attend volunteering events. On the other hand, an environmentally and socially motivated nudge in isolation has no effect on volunteering behaviour. However, combining the nudge with the voucher incentive enhances the efficacy of either treatment alone, demonstrating that significant positive synergies exist between nudges and incentives in this context. 
In stage two, we show volunteering for the first-time is plausibly randomly assigned, conditional on availability and being offered an incentive. We use this feature to estimate the causal impact of volunteering for the first time on future volunteering behaviour and other outcomes of interest. We find that volunteering for the first time crowds in future volunteering behaviour, generates positive spillovers to other pro-environmental behaviours and strengthens environmental self-identity and locus of control beliefs, which are important pre-cursors to pro-environmental behaviour. Our results show two mechanisms are likely driving these effects. Firstly, volunteering for the first-time provides important information about the benefits of volunteering that are used in future decision-making. Secondly, it strengthens environmental attitudes and identity, which in-turn affect preferences for pro-environmental behaviour. Taken together, our results show that using a financial incentive to help people experiment with volunteering can lead to large positive spillovers and crowding-in effects for future pro-environmental behaviour.

text: Pro-environmental behaviour change for nature: Empirical and theoretical evidence from a field experiment in Aotearoa New Zealand Individual behaviour change is a crucial component of our response to current environmental challenges and over recent years, a growing body of literature has focussed on the drivers and levers of pro-environmental behaviours. However, scholars have noted there is a considerable shortage of behavioural science research that focuses on behaviours that directly impact nature and biodiversity. This is concerning, given the enormous value populations place on nature, the fundamental role nature plays in society and because nature is declining rapidly. 
In this thesis, we focus on understanding volunteering for nature restoration groups, which we show is an under-researched behaviour in the literature. It also has relatively high potential to deliver positive impacts for biodiversity and nature. We start by developing a simple generalisable theoretical model that suggests three main factors may be inhibiting the uptake of volunteering for nature – uncertainty, inaccuracy and high behavioural adjustment costs. We use this model to inform the design and hypotheses for a large field experiment in Aotearoa New Zealand where we aim to answer the following questions:
How can we increase volunteering for nature restoration groups? What are the effects of volunteering for the first-time on future volunteering behaviour? How does volunteering affect other important outcomes of interest, like environmental identity, locus of control beliefs and wellbeing?
Our field experiment has two stages. In stage one, we randomly assign first-time volunteers (those who are not already engaged in nature volunteering) to treatment groups to assess the impact of a nudge, a supermarket voucher incentive and a nudge and incentive combined on volunteering behaviour. We find that a $50 NZD supermarket incentive increases attendance rates at volunteering events and commitment rates to attend volunteering events. On the other hand, an environmentally and socially motivated nudge in isolation has no effect on volunteering behaviour. However, combining the nudge with the voucher incentive enhances the efficacy of either treatment alone, demonstrating that significant positive synergies exist between nudges and incentives in this context. 
In stage two, we show volunteering for the first-time is plausibly randomly assigned, conditional on availability and being offered an incentive. We use this feature to estimate the causal impact of volunteering for the first time on future volunteering behaviour and other outcomes of interest. We find that volunteering for the first time crowds in future volunteering behaviour, generates positive spillovers to other pro-environmental behaviours and strengthens environmental self-identity and locus of control beliefs, which are important pre-cursors to pro-environmental behaviour. Our results show two mechanisms are likely driving these effects. Firstly, volunteering for the first-time provides important information about the benefits of volunteering that are used in future decision-making. Secondly, it strengthens environmental attitudes and identity, which in-turn affect preferences for pro-environmental behaviour. Taken together, our results show that using a financial incentive to help people experiment with volunteering can lead to large positive spillovers and crowding-in effects for future pro-environmental behaviour.

year: 2023

title: Ngā maihi o Te Whare Hukahuka, ngā maihi o Te Whare o Ruamano: Te whare kōrero o ngā maihi o Tuteao

authors: Hona, Hakahaka Charlie Barlow

subjects: Tuteao

abstract: Ko Pūtauaki te maunga
Ko Rangitāiki te awa
Ko Hekerangi te papa whenua
Ko Tuteao te marae
Ko Ngā Maihi te hapū
Ko Ngāti Awa te iwi
Ko Mataatua te waka
Tihe mauri-ora
Ko tōku kāwai rangatira tēnei. E mōhio ai te tangata ko wai ahau; nō hea ahau, nā wai hoki ahau. Ā, nā whai anō taku urupounamu, ko wai a Ngā Maihi o Tuteao? E mea ana ngā pākeke, he iwi tawhito a Ngā Maihi i heke mai i ngā tātai whakapapa o Tangaroa, o Pōtiki, o Mahutapoanui, o Toroa, o Tuteao. Hēoi, kua kore e rangona ōna kōrero i runga marae ātea. Kua kore e wānangahia i roto i te poho o te whare o Tuteao. Kua ngū ngā poupou o te whare kōrero. Ka mutu, i roto i ngā tau tata nei kua riro tītapu ngā puna o te kī, ngā whītiki o te kupu, o te hapū; kua kore e rangona ngā kōrero o Ngā Maihi i runga marae ātea. Ko te haumate o te reo i runga o Tuteao tētahi take i pēnei ai. Nō reira, kai te imu te ruhi, kai te imu te ngēngē. E noho pōhara ana a Ngā Maihi ki ngā tāonga o tōna whare kōrero. Hei te tau 2027, ka whakanuia te rautau o te whare tīpuna a Tuteao, ā i tēnei tau tonu 2022, e whai whakaaro ana te hapū ki taua kaupapa otirā ki te hanga whare tīpuna hou; he whare kaitā e uru ai te tokomaha. Nō reira, e whakaaro ana hoki ki ngā kōrero ka whakairohia ki ngā pakitara o te whare. I tēnei tau hoki kua mana te whakaako i ngā kōrero hītori o te Māori i roto i ngā kura, nō reira he aha rā ngā kōrero e wātea ana ki ngā tamariki o ngā kura e pā ana ki a Ngā Maihi? He maramara, he kongakonga, he putunga kōrero e noho marara ana i ngā wāhi tūmatanui. He uaua te kitea o ētahi atu, kei ngā wāhi tūmataiti, pēnei i te Kōti Whenua Māori, i ngā tuhinga ā-whānau, kei ngā pukapuka wānanga o te marae. Nō reira, he uaua te kite atu i tōna whānuitanga, i tōna hohonutanga. Tīmata ake i ngā kohinga kōrero o te hapū tonu o Ngā Maihi, i ōna kaumātua, i ōna wānanga, i ōna whānau. I tua atu i wā te whare pukapuka, kei ngā wāhi tūmataiti ētahi putunga kōrero hei ō mo te whare kōrero o Ngā Maihi o Tuteao. Ka mutu, kei ngā waiata, ngā haka, ngā mōteatea. Kai ngā kōrero hoki o iwi kē, e pā ana ki wō mātou tīpuna. I reira i tōtō mai i te kōrero.

text: Ngā maihi o Te Whare Hukahuka, ngā maihi o Te Whare o Ruamano: Te whare kōrero o ngā maihi o Tuteao Ko Pūtauaki te maunga
Ko Rangitāiki te awa
Ko Hekerangi te papa whenua
Ko Tuteao te marae
Ko Ngā Maihi te hapū
Ko Ngāti Awa te iwi
Ko Mataatua te waka
Tihe mauri-ora
Ko tōku kāwai rangatira tēnei. E mōhio ai te tangata ko wai ahau; nō hea ahau, nā wai hoki ahau. Ā, nā whai anō taku urupounamu, ko wai a Ngā Maihi o Tuteao? E mea ana ngā pākeke, he iwi tawhito a Ngā Maihi i heke mai i ngā tātai whakapapa o Tangaroa, o Pōtiki, o Mahutapoanui, o Toroa, o Tuteao. Hēoi, kua kore e rangona ōna kōrero i runga marae ātea. Kua kore e wānangahia i roto i te poho o te whare o Tuteao. Kua ngū ngā poupou o te whare kōrero. Ka mutu, i roto i ngā tau tata nei kua riro tītapu ngā puna o te kī, ngā whītiki o te kupu, o te hapū; kua kore e rangona ngā kōrero o Ngā Maihi i runga marae ātea. Ko te haumate o te reo i runga o Tuteao tētahi take i pēnei ai. Nō reira, kai te imu te ruhi, kai te imu te ngēngē. E noho pōhara ana a Ngā Maihi ki ngā tāonga o tōna whare kōrero. Hei te tau 2027, ka whakanuia te rautau o te whare tīpuna a Tuteao, ā i tēnei tau tonu 2022, e whai whakaaro ana te hapū ki taua kaupapa otirā ki te hanga whare tīpuna hou; he whare kaitā e uru ai te tokomaha. Nō reira, e whakaaro ana hoki ki ngā kōrero ka whakairohia ki ngā pakitara o te whare. I tēnei tau hoki kua mana te whakaako i ngā kōrero hītori o te Māori i roto i ngā kura, nō reira he aha rā ngā kōrero e wātea ana ki ngā tamariki o ngā kura e pā ana ki a Ngā Maihi? He maramara, he kongakonga, he putunga kōrero e noho marara ana i ngā wāhi tūmatanui. He uaua te kitea o ētahi atu, kei ngā wāhi tūmataiti, pēnei i te Kōti Whenua Māori, i ngā tuhinga ā-whānau, kei ngā pukapuka wānanga o te marae. Nō reira, he uaua te kite atu i tōna whānuitanga, i tōna hohonutanga. Tīmata ake i ngā kohinga kōrero o te hapū tonu o Ngā Maihi, i ōna kaumātua, i ōna wānanga, i ōna whānau. I tua atu i wā te whare pukapuka, kei ngā wāhi tūmataiti ētahi putunga kōrero hei ō mo te whare kōrero o Ngā Maihi o Tuteao. Ka mutu, kei ngā waiata, ngā haka, ngā mōteatea. Kai ngā kōrero hoki o iwi kē, e pā ana ki wō mātou tīpuna. I reira i tōtō mai i te kōrero.

year: 2022