Increasing Requests for Information by Preschoolers with and without Language-Based Disabilities

Abstract

We report two experiments on the emission of questions to request the names of unfamiliar stimuli by preschoolers. In the first experiment, 19 preschoolers with and without disabilities served as participants. Experiment 1 was a descriptive analysis of whether or not the 19 participants asked questions about unfamiliar pictures and objects in one-to-one and group settings. These were dependent variables in the second experiment as well. Four participants, who did not ask any questions in the first experiment, served as participants in the second experiment. During the intervention, the participants observed the peer confederates (1) ask questions (e.g., “What is that?”), (2) receive information from the experimenter, and (3) receive praise and tokens contingent on asking a question. A multiple probe design across participants was used. The data showed that the participants increased the number of questions when we returned to baseline conditions. Results are discussed in terms of where the reinforcement exists for asking questions about unfamiliar things in one’s environment, and whether this truly measures the “need to know”.

A systematic review of mands for information

“…Speckman et al. (2021) had only one experiment that met our inclusion criteria (Experiment 2); therefore, we only included information about the respective experiment. Three of these articles included two experiments (Carnett et al., 2020; Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Sundberg et al., 2001).…”

“…The authors of 17 experiments reported assessments (e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Sparrow et al., 2005; VB‐MAPP, Sundberg, 2008; Preschool Language Scale, Zimmerman et al., 2002) to evaluate the participants' verbal behavior (Carnett et al., 2020; Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016; Howlett et al., 2011; Kahlow et al., 2019; Landa et al., 2017, 2020; Lechago et al., 2010, 2013; Marion et al., 2011, Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, & Kerr, 2012; Pyles et al., 2021; Roy‐Wsiaki et al., 2010; Shillingsburg et al., 2018, 2019; Somers et al., 2014; Speckman et al., 2021; Valentino et al., 2019), and the authors of 12 experiments reported those assessment results (all but Howlett et al., 2011; Lechago et al., 2013; Shillingsburg et al., 2018; Somers et al., 2014). The authors of all 35 experiments reported anecdotal information for each participant's existing verbal repertoire (e.g., can tact more than 100 items; can mand for information using wh‐ questions, but does not mand for information using how?…”

“…The authors of 26 experiments reported using preferred tangibles, edibles, tokens, and activities to reinforce correct responding (Betz et al., 2010; Carnett et al., 2020; Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Howlett et al., 2011; Ingvarsson et al., 2007; Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010; Kahlow et al., 2019; Landa et al., 2017; Lechago et al., 2010, 2013; Marion et al., 2011; Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, Kerr, & Claeys, 2012; Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, & Kerr, 2012; Pyles et al., 2021; Roy‐Wsiaki et al., 2010; Shillingsburg et al., 2011, 2014, 2016, 2019; Shillingsburg & Valentino, 2011; Somers et al., 2014; Speckman et al., 2021; Sundberg et al., 2002). To identify preferred items or activities, direct preference assessments were used in 14 experiments (Betz et al., 2010; Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Ingvarsson et al., 2007; Kahlow et al., 2019; Landa et al., 2017; Shillingsburg et al., 2011, 2014, 2016, 2019; Sundberg et al., 2002; Pyles et al., 2021) and both direct and indirect preference assessments were used in eight experiments (Carnett et al., 2020; Howlett et al., 2011; Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010; Lechago et al., 2010, 2013; Marion et al., 2011; Somers et al., 2014).…”

“…Finally, in four experiments the consequence for the mand consisted of information, in three experiments it consisted of information and praise, and in one experiment it consisted of information, praise, and tokens (see Table 1 for references). It is important to note that in four of the experiments where the consequence consisted of information alone, or information and praise plus tokens, participants learned the response I don't know or What is it (Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016; Ingvarsson et al., 2007; Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010; Speckman et al., 2021). In these experiments, praise (and tokens; Speckman et al., 2021) was provided for correct responses following the provision of information, rather than for the mand for information itself; therefore, praise and tokens can be viewed as the terminal reinforcers.…”

“…The authors of 17 experiments reported assessments (e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Sparrow et al, 2005;VB-MAPP, Sundberg, 2008;Preschool Language Scale, Zimmerman et al, 2002) to evaluate the participants' verbal behavior (Carnett et al, 2020;Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016;Howlett et al, 2011;Kahlow et al, 2019;Landa et al, 2017Landa et al, , 2020Lechago et al, 2010Lechago et al, , 2013Marion et al, 2011Pyles et al, 2021;Roy-Wsiaki et al, 2010;Shillingsburg et al, 2018Shillingsburg et al, , 2019Somers et al, 2014;Speckman et al, 2021;Valentino et al, 2019), and the authors of 12 experiments reported those assessment results (all but Howlett…”