Assessment & Research

On the relation of mands and the function of destructive behavior.

Bowman et al. (1997) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 1997
★ The Verdict

When your FA is inconclusive, run a mand analysis—reinforce only good requests and let problem behavior contact extinction.

✓ Read this if BCBAs stuck with unclear FA results in clinic or school
✗ Skip if Teams whose FA already shows clear escape or sensory function

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team ran a mand analysis after a standard FA gave no clear answer. They switched gears and tested what happened when only good requests got rewards.

They used a multielement design. One condition gave candy for nice asks. The other gave candy for nice asks but also let problem behavior win the same prize.

02

What they found

Problem behavior fell to almost zero when only appropriate mands earned the item. When problem behavior also worked, it stayed high.

The quick flip showed the behavior was about getting stuff, not escape. The inconclusive FA now made sense.

03

How this fits with other research

Siu et al. (2011) later ran a similar test and got matching results in three of four kids. Their work backs the idea that reinforcing mands during FA can still spot function.

Rajaraman et al. (2021) pulled together many studies like this one. Their review says if an FA is muddy, check whether granting or denying requests drives the trouble.

Guest et al. (2013) took a different path. They handed the FA to caregivers and also solved inconclusive cases. Both papers aim at the same problem but use different tools.

04

Why it matters

You can salvage a useless FA in one extra step. First, teach a simple mand. Then only honor that mand and put problem behavior on extinction. If behavior tanks, you have a clear social-positive function and a ready-made FCT plan. No extra rooms, no new staff, just a quick contingency flip.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick one item the client often wants, teach a simple mand for it, and for one session only give the item after that mand while withholding it for any problem behavior.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional communication training
Design
multielement
Sample size
2
Population
not specified
Finding
positive
Magnitude
large

03Original abstract

When standard analogue functional analysis procedures produce inconclusive results in children with conversational speech, the child's mands may help to identify the function of destructive behavior. In the current investigation, functional analyses conducted with 2 children who exhibited self-injury, aggression, and property destruction were undifferentiated across conditions. Based on informal observations and school and parental report, an analysis was conducted using mands to help determine the function of the destructive behavior. Using a multielement design, the therapist's compliance with the child's mands occurred either on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule or contingent on destructive behavior. Destructive behavior occurred at high and consistent levels when reinforcement of mands was contingent on destructive behavior and at near-zero levels when reinforcement of mands occurred on the FR 1 schedule. Based on these results, a second analysis was conducted in which compliance to mands occurred only when the child appropriately requested it (i.e., functional communication training plus extinction) and, for 1 child, compliance with mands was terminated contingent upon destructive behavior (i.e., functional communication training plus response cost). For both children, the rates of destructive behavior decreased markedly. The results suggest that assessing the child's mands may be useful in decreasing destructive behavior when a functional analysis is inconclusive.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1997 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-251