Producing mands in concurrent operant environments

Seaver et al. (2020) tested four quick ways to boost manding when a child has two choices. They set up two buttons or picture cards side-by-side. Each side paid off with snacks or toys on its own timer.

One by one they added a prompt, a richer schedule, a strong motivation operation, or all three. They watched which tweak made each of eight children press or point more.

Every child learned to ask for at least one new item. Prompts worked for four kids, schedule changes for three, motivation tricks for two. The full package worked for the only child who got it.

No single fix helped everyone, but most kids responded to at least one.

Seaver et al. (2023) ran the same two-choice setup with three boys with autism and copied the prompt-plus-schedule win. The 2020 paper did not list diagnoses, so the 2023 study shows the trick still works for kids on the spectrum.

Allen et al. (2016) also aimed for varied mands, but they used colored placemats and a lag schedule instead of concurrent choices. Both teams got new requests, proving you can take different roads to the same goal.

Griffith et al. (2012) taught mands by interrupting a favorite activity and prompting the missing item. That single-chain method and the 2020 two-choice method both rely on smart prompting, giving you two tools for the same job.

If a client stalls at one mand, slide two options in front of them and first try a quick prompt or a thicker reinforcement schedule. About half the time that is enough to see new requests pop out, and you can run the test in any natural setting with minimal prep.