Elsevier

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Volume 1, Issue 3, July–September 2007, Pages 210-217
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Contriving motivating operations to evoke mands for information in preschoolers with autism

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2006.10.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Four preschoolers with autism participated in the study. Stimulus preference assessments were conducted to identify high and low preferred items, which were then hidden or given to an adult in order to contrive motivation for the information about the location of the items. The first experiment involved the manipulation of motivating operations to evoke the mand “Where is it?” Upon successful acquisition of this initial mand for information, students participated in a second experiment involving the manipulation of a motivating operation to evoke the mand “Who has it?” All participants successfully acquired the ability to mand for information.

Introduction

Typically developing children tend to emit high rates of question asking behavior, or mands for information. Children with autism typically have trouble acquiring mands for information. This may be because the establishing operations controlling these mands are not strong enough to evoke the mand for information. In other words, the information is not “valuable” enough to motivate the individual to ask the question to obtain it. Thus, an effective method of teaching mands for information may include manipulation of the establishing operation in order to increase the probability that a mand will occur. Previous research has been conducted with individuals with disabilities in which question asking behavior was taught (Taylor & Harris, 1995; Twardosz & Baer, 1973; Williams, Donley, & Keller, 2000). Many of the previous studies have manipulated a motivating operation in order to teach a mand, such as “What is that?” or “Can I have it?” However, these studies did not contrive motivating operations in order to teach a mand for information involving where, why, or who.

Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, and Eigenheer (2002) conducted two experiments in which children with autism were taught to mand for information involving the location of an item. Participants were given access to a preferred item in a container, then the container was given back without the item. When the participant manded using “Where (item?),” the location of the item was provided (a can, box, or bag). Once they were able to successfully mand using “Where,” a second experiment was conducted in which the item was given to an adult, and the participants were taught to mand “Who has it?” The present study is a systematic replication of the study by Sundberg et al. (2002) utilizing a different population (preschoolers with autism), a naturalistic experimental preparation that more fully approximates the environment where the target skill will be used, and with the addition of a stimulus preference assessment.

Section snippets

Participants and setting

Four males aged 3–5 years, enrolled in a self-contained intensive behavioral intervention program for participants with ASD on a university campus, served as participants in the two experiments. Stewart, age 4; Braden, age 4; Gavin, age 3; and Dillon, age 5, had received independent diagnoses of Autistic Spectrum Disorder by outside agencies or physicians. Stewart, Braden, and Gavin participated in Experiment 1 and Stewart, Braden, and Dillon participated in Experiment 2. All participants

Discussion

The results of these experiments demonstrate that preschoolers with autism are capable of learning to mand for information with the manipulation of motivating operations and a simple prompting procedure. These results are consistent with those reported by Sundberg et al. (2002). The rationale for utilizing motivating operation manipulations is to ensure that mand behavior comes under the control of the appropriate conditions. If alternative sources of reinforcement are used, such as tokens or

References (5)

  • J.E. Carr et al.

    Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context

    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

    (2000)
  • M.L. Sundberg et al.

    Contriving establishing operations to teach mands for information

    The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

    (2002)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (35)

  • Competition enhances mentalizing performance in autism

    2016, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
  • Functional analysis of maladaptive behaviors: Rule as a transitive conditioned motivating operation

    2016, Research in Developmental Disabilities
    Citation Excerpt :

    Motivating Operations (MOs), also discussed as either Establishing Operations (EOs) or Abolishing Operations (AOs), are such antecedent stimulus changes or antecedent stimulus conditions that alter the reinforcing effectiveness of other stimuli and subsequently alter some dimension of a response or members of a response class associated with the stimuli whose reinforcing value have been established or abolished (Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003; McGill, 1999; Michael, 2000). Motivating operations may be incorporated, or at least accounted for, in both functional analysis procedures (Call, Wacker, Ringdahl, & Boelter, 2005; Lalli & Casey, 1996; McGill, 1999; Thomas & Fraiser, 2005), and the resulting intervention procedures (Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Lang et al., 2009, 2010). Accounting for motivating operations within functional analysis and treatment, Lalli and Casey (1996) discovered through descriptive analysis that aggressive behavior in a six-year-old boy toward his mother was temporally related to her requests to terminate interactive play activities and clean up toys.

  • Teaching individuals with autism spectrum disorder to ask questions: A systematic review

    2013, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
    Citation Excerpt :

    Although the acquisition outcomes were generally positive, generalization effects were somewhat limited. For example, while some studies reported positive results for generalization across instructional materials or activities (e.g., Betz et al., 2010; Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Marion et al., 2011), other studies reported mixed results (e.g., Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Esbenshade & Rosales-Ruiz, 2001; Shillingsburg et al., 2011). Further, although Betz et al. (2010) successfully taught three participants the where mand and it generalized across novel toys and novel settings, the mand failed to generalize to a natural behavior chain.

  • Teaching children with Autism Spectrum Disorder to mand "what is it?"

    2011, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
    Citation Excerpt :

    Both Zach and Kevin's parents reported hearing their child mand “What” more frequently. Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research on teaching mands to children with ASD (e.g., Betz et al.; Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Lechago et al., 2010; Roy-Wsiaki et al., in press; Sundberg et al., 2002). In conclusion, the procedures used in this study appeared to be effective in teaching children with ASD to mand for information and in producing generalization.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text