Further evaluation of prompt density, rate of reinforcement, and the persistence of manding

Ringdahl et al. (2023) asked a simple question: if we keep the rate of reinforcement the same, does giving more prompts make manding last longer?

They compared dense-prompt and lean-prompt schedules while holding reinforcers steady.

The team tracked how long each learner kept asking when reinforcement later thinned out.

Dense prompting did not automatically create stronger persistence.

Results were mixed: sometimes dense helped, sometimes it did not.

The learners’ past reinforcement history and how many different mands they already had mattered more than prompt density alone.

Foran‐Conn et al. (2021) also tinkered with prompt schedules. They found responsive prompt delay worked as well as most-to-least, showing that timing of prompts can outweigh sheer quantity.

Bouck et al. (2016) looked at resurgence of old mands when new ones were reinforced. Their data echo Ringdahl’s point: what was reinforced before shapes what comes back later.

Together these studies tell one story: prompt density is only one knob. Reinforcement history, response variety, and prompt timing all twist the same dial on lasting manding.

Before you pile on prompts, check the learner’s history and current mand repertoire. If the child has only one mand or has received thick reinforcement in the past, extra prompts may not save you when reinforcement thins. Instead, build multiple response forms first and thin reinforcement gradually while you track persistence.