An evaluation of strategies to maintain mands at practical levels.

The team worked with children with autism who had just learned to ask for things with FCT.

They wanted to know which schedule would keep requests low but still working: a multiple schedule that gave breaks every 30 s after 270 s of no reinforcement, or a simple 270-s delay that lit a red light to show the wait time.

Each child had both schedules tested in a single-case design.

The multiple schedule kept requests at a steady, low level for every child.

The signaled 270-s delay did not work; requests stayed high and some kids got upset.

Stevens et al. (2018) later added lag schedules to FCT thinning and still kept problem behavior low.

Lambert et al. (2017) tried teaching several mands in serial order to cut resurgence; both studies extend the 2006 idea that creative thinning beats simple long delays.

Taras et al. (1993) warned that signals must shorten the felt delay; the 2006 failure of the red-light delay shows that warning alone is not enough.

You can stop the post-FCT "ask, ask, ask" spiral without an extinction burst.

Program a 270-s work period with brief 30-s reinforcement windows instead of one long signaled wait.

Start Monday by setting a 4½-min timer; when it rings, give 30 s of the reinforcer, then reset.