Influence of motivating operations and discriminative stimuli on challenging behavior maintained by positive reinforcement.

Edrisinha et al. (2011) tested how a quick pre-session event changes problem behavior. They worked with children who had developmental delays. Each child got either an establishing operation (EO) or an abolishing operation (AO) right before an extinction session.

The EO meant the reinforcer was briefly available. The AO meant the reinforcer was removed. Then the team watched how much challenging behavior happened when no reinforcement followed.

The EO spike won. After the EO, kids showed more problem behavior even though reinforcement stayed off. After the AO, the same kids showed less problem behavior.

In short, a short taste of the reinforcer before session can override the usual stimulus control and push behavior up during extinction.

Kahng et al. (1999) saw the same EO power inside functional analyses. They noticed that minute-by-minute shifts in reinforcer availability clarified an unclear FA. Chaturi et al. moved that idea into pure extinction and showed the same EO punch.

Fisher et al. (2018) extended the finding to functional communication training. They found that starting FCT with brief EO exposures prevents extinction bursts. Chaturi et al. had already shown why: a long EO before extinction raises behavior.

Simó-Pinatella et al. (2013) reviewed 31 studies and concluded that matching your MO move to the behavior’s function gives better outcomes. Chaturi et al. supplies the lab proof for that rule.

If you run an extinction procedure, watch what happens right before session. A quick reinforcer sample can sabotage your plan by spiking motivation. Instead, set an abolishing operation: give free, noncontingent access to the reinforcer for a few minutes, then start session. You will see calmer behavior and fewer extinction bursts without adding extra prompts or restraint.