Do establishing operations alter reinforcement effectiveness?

Gillberg (1993) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. The author asked a simple question: do establishing operations really make reinforcers stronger, or do they just make the behavior happen now?

You see a hungry client work harder for chips. Did hunger boost the chip's power, or just make the kid ask? The paper says we still lack lab proof for the first idea.

The paper found no study that cleanly shows an EO changing how much a reinforcer is worth. All we have is data showing EOs make the response more likely right now.

In short, the field has assumed reinforcer potency shifts, but no one has measured it directly.

Rose et al. (2000) took the opposite stance. They told analysts to use EOs to explain feelings and thoughts, accepting that EOs do alter reinforcer value. The two papers clash in tone: one warns we lack proof, the other urges wider use.

McCabe et al. (2025) looked at synthesized contingency assessments. These tests assume two reinforcers feel stronger together. That idea rests on the very mechanism Gillberg (1993) says is unproven, so the review's weak findings quietly support the 1993 caution.

Cividini-Motta et al. (2024) found that skill-acquisition studies using differential reinforcement usually succeed, but they rarely check if an EO raised reinforcer value. Their review shows applied work keeps moving without answering the 1993 question.

Before you tell a parent 'he worked because the EO made the cookie more powerful,' remember we still lack direct evidence. You can keep using EOs to describe why a response occurs now, but be humble: the cookie's value may not have changed, only the moment did. Design sessions that test both ideas—run a reinforcer assessment with and without the EO, and plot demand curves as Harrington et al. (2006) did. Until then, speak to teams with caution: 'The EO likely evoked the response,' not 'The EO boosted reinforcer potency.'