Producing mands in concurrent operant environments

Abstract

This study examined strategies designed to increase the rate of targeted, low-probability mands in a concurrent operant environment. We examined the effects of schedule manipulations, prompt manipulations, motivating operation manipulations, and combined behavioral process manipulations. Increases in target mands were produced for all 8 participants. Schedule manipulations were effective in producing increased rates of targeted mands for 3 of 8 participants, whereas prompt manipulations were effective for 4 of 8 participants. Motivating operation manipulations were effective in producing increased rates of targeted mands for 2 of 8 participants and combined behavioral process manipulations were effective for the single participant exposed to the combination.

Using concurrent reinforcement schedules and prompts to produce varied manding: A replication of Seaver and Bourret (2020)

“…An effective procedure to increase target manding in a concurrent operant environment was found for all three participants. Saif and Hamdan's results replicate those of Seaver and Bourret (2020) by demonstrating the effectiveness of the concurrent FR 1 RI 30-s schedule plus prompting. These data add further support for use of this intervention when the concurrent FR 1 RI 30-s schedule alone does not produce increases in target manding.…”

“…In their review paper on promoting behavior variability, Wolfe et al (2014) found lag schedules of reinforcement, reinforcement of novel responding, concurrent schedules of reinforcement, and prompting were all effective treatments for promoting varied responding. Several researchers have looked specifically at manipulating concurrent schedules of reinforcement to produce varied manding for previously established mands (Bernstein & Sturmey, 2008;Seaver & Bourret, 2020). Bernstein and Sturmey (2008) modified the distribution of manding for previously established mands for two participants with ASD.…”

“…In addition to manipulating concurrent schedules of reinforcement to produce varied manding for previously established mands, prompting has also been used as an intervention (Bourret et al, 2004;Romani et al, 2013;Seaver & Bourret, 2020). Romani et al (2013) found that a rich-prompt schedule resulted in increased rates of manding as compared to a lean-prompt schedule for two participants diagnosed with intellectual disability and ASD or developmental delay.…”

“…For one participant, a concurrent FR 1 RI 30-schedule plus prompts increased target manding. The purpose of the current study was to attempt to replicate and extend the results of Seaver and Bourret (2020) by evaluating the effects of manipulating concurrent schedules of reinforcement, alone and with prompts, on the rates of target manding.…”

Increasing social time allocation and concomitant effects on mands, item engagement, and rigid or repetitive behavior

“…For example, it could be beneficial to ensure that generic interactions such as praise and conversation are reinforcing before delivering them as consequences for any given client, rather than assuming they are reinforcers and including them for all clients. In contrast, if the assessment indicates social interaction is neutral or aversive for a given individual, then interventions can be implemented to condition social interactions as reinforcers (e.g., Axe & Laprime, 2017; Dozier et al, 2012), facilitate acquisition of fundamental social or play skills (e.g., joint attention, Taylor & Hoch, 2008; mands, Seaver & Bourret, 2020), and reduce or prevent social avoidance and corresponding problems. Moreover, the results of assessments of sociability may provide a more naturalistic, general dependent measure with which to evaluate the effects of these interventions.…”