Differential impact of response effort within a response chain on use of mands in a student with autism.
Cut the picture-exchange chain to two quick steps so the mand beats the FR schedule that feeds aggression.
01Research in Context
What this study did
One student with autism used aggression to get toys on an FR3 schedule. The team wanted to replace that aggression with a picture-exchange mand.
They compared two chains. One chain had two steps: pick card, hand to adult. The other had four steps: pick card, walk to box, open box, hand to adult. They used an ABAB reversal design to test each chain.
What they found
The short two-step mand quickly won. Aggression dropped and the student used the mand instead.
The long four-step mand never took off. The student kept hitting even though the mand still worked. Less effort beat more effort.
How this fits with other research
Richman et al. (2001) ran a similar test years earlier. They also saw hard mands lose to easy mands. Dagnan et al. (2005) repeats that story with tighter controls and a child with autism.
Shawler et al. (2021) looked at dozens of effort studies. Their review says the same thing: lower effort usually wins. The 2005 paper is one brick in that wall.
Taylor et al. (1993) taught mands with a correction step, not effort. Both papers aim for true mands, but they tweak different knobs. Effort and verification are separate tools you can mix.
Why it matters
When you write an FCT plan, count the steps. If the mand has more moves than the problem behavior, it will probably lose. Start with the shortest chain that still works. You can add steps later once the mand is strong.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Audit your client’s mand chain; if it has more than two moves, collapse it to pick-and-hand tonight.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We investigated the effects of response effort on the use of mands during functional communication training (FCT) in a participant with autism. The number of links in a picture exchange response chain determined two levels of response effort. Each level was paired with a fixed ratio (FR3) schedule of reinforcement for aggression in a reversal design. Responding to either schedule produced access to a preferred item. The participant opted for the low effort mand while aggression decreased significantly. However, the high effort mand did not compete with the FR3 schedule for aggression. Results are discussed in terms of response effort within a response chain of a picture exchange system and competing ratio schedules for problem behavior during mand training.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2005 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.07.004