Negatively-Reinforced Mands: An Examination of Resurgence to Existing Mands in Two Children With Autism and Language Delays.
Teach two escape mands, then test with a short delay—one kid may slide back, so plan extra practice.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Two boys with autism who had almost no words learned to ask for a break.
The team taught each boy two brand-new ways to say "I want out." They used picture cards first, then spoken words.
Later they made the boys wait longer for the break. They watched to see if the kids would slide back to old, maybe harmful, ways to escape.
What they found
Both boys picked up the new break requests fast. They used the pictures and the words in new rooms and with new adults.
When the teacher waited ten seconds before giving the break, one boy slipped back to older escape moves. The other boy kept asking the new way.
How this fits with other research
Rosenthal et al. (1980) showed that kids need to practice each request in the exact spot you want it used. Bouck et al. (2016) followed that rule and got strong use in new places.
Carnett et al. (2016) taught kids to ask questions with an iPad the same year. Both studies show one truth: give kids more than one way to talk and they will use them.
Ringdahl et al. (2023) later found that dense prompting alone does not make a mand stick. Bouck et al. (2016) adds a second key piece: slow reinforcement can still knock a new mand out, so plan for that.
Why it matters
If you run FCT for escape, teach at least two new break mands. Probe with a ten-second delay early; if the child slips back, shorten the wait and add more practice. This keeps the new skill strong and problem behavior low.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After the child masters one break mand, add a second form, then run a ten-second delay probe—if resurgence hits, shorten the delay and reinforce fast.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this study, we extended the literature on negatively-reinforced mands by teaching multiple novel, socially appropriate alternative mands to two young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). First, we replaced existing mands (e.g., pushing away) with two novel, socially appropriate, negatively-reinforced mands. Next, we examined responding under immediate- and delayed-reinforcement conditions to assess resurgence to existing mands and to determine whether the function of the communicative behavior influences the consistency with which different mands are emitted. Finally, we examined generalization to different social partners. Our data suggest that both children acquired the new mands and used them to avoid nonpreferred items. Resurgence to existing mands during delayed-reinforcement conditions was documented for one child, and the sequence in which mands were emitted within a response class was not influenced by the function of the communicative behavior. Generalization data indicate that both children emitted the new mands and one of the two children alternated between the two mands with a social partner who was not involved in the training. We discuss the importance of teaching multiple negatively-reinforced alternative mands to children with autism in applied settings.
Behavior modification, 2016 · doi:10.1177/0145445516648664