Coal Is Not Black, Snow Is Not White, Food Is Not a Reinforcer: The Roles of Affordances and Dispositions in the Analysis of Behavior.

Root et al. (2017) wrote a think-piece. They asked: why do we call food a reinforcer before we test it?

The authors say reinforcers are not built-in. A cookie only reinforces if the client wants it right now.

The paper finds no data. Instead it argues: stop labeling stimuli. Start testing the whole scene.

Reinforcer power comes from the moment, the client, and the task together.

White et al. (2021) backs the warning. Their review shows edibles do not always beat tangibles. Method choices, not the items, decide the winner.

Sievers et al. (2020) gives a fix. Longer access to leisure items stops edibles from falsely topping the list. Magnitude, not the item itself, shifts the hierarchy.

Howard et al. (2023) adds a twist. The Premack principle works only when the high-probability behavior is truly high for that client. Again, context rules.

These studies do not fight R et al. They each show the same bottom line: test first, label later.

Next time you run a preference assessment, treat it like an experiment. Rotate magnitudes, watch for displacement, and recheck when the client’s motivation shifts. Drop the phrase ‘his reinforcer’ from reports. Write ‘item that reinforced sorting in this session.’ Your treatment will match the moment, and your data will stay honest.