Evaluating Treatments for Functionally Equivalent Problem Behavior Maintained by Adult Compliance with Mands During Interactive Play

Assessment and Treatment of Challenging Behavior Maintained by a Nonvocal Mands Function

“…Although the functional analysis (FA) is well established in identifying functions of challenging behavior for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Beavers, Iwata, & Lerman, 2013), standard FA procedures may require modification to assess idiosyncratic variables, such as adult compliance with mands (Bowman, Fisher, Thompson, & Piazza, 1997). In the literature, the mands function is largely represented by individuals with developmental disabilities who vocally communicate idiosyncratic requests through vocalizations (Schmidt et al, 2017). Mand content is widely variable and typically idiosyncratic (e.g., mands for rearrangement; Torres-Viso, Strohmeier, & Zarcone, 2018; playing in a certain way; Bowman et al, 1997).…”

Mand compliance as a contingency controlling problem behavior: A systematic review

“…Therefore, the purported relation between problem behavior and increased mand compliance is not readily apparent from visual analysis of the data in this literature. In the absence of within‐session data on manding and adult compliance with mands across stimulus conditions, we do not know if the contingency is static or dynamic in nature, despite repeated characterizations of the latter (Bowman et al, 1997; Fisher, 2001; Schmidt et al, 2017; Slaton & Hanley, 2018; Torres‐Viso et al, 2018). In other words, based on the existing data on problem behavior sensitivity to mand compliance, observed problem behavior could have been equally likely to have been controlled by the mere denial of access to a single item as it could have been to the differential likelihood of compliance with multiple mands for unique reinforcers.…”

“…A summary of the information gleaned from indirect and descriptive assessments that led researchers to analyze mand compliance may be of some utility to those tasked with assessing and treating problem behavior. Across all reviewed studies, researchers reported similar caregiver reports and observations that can be characterized in the following manner: Participants emitted frequent requests for items (e.g., a computer), activities (e.g., playing a board game), social interactions (e.g., conversing about dinosaurs), environmental arrangements (e.g., having papers and crayons organized a certain way), and for adults to behave in particular ways (e.g., imitating a cartoon character's voice and dialogue; see Bowman et al, 1997, Schmidt et al, 2017, and Warner et al, 2020 for detailed examples of participant requests). Some participants reportedly recruited only a particular type of reinforcer (e.g., the participant in Torres‐Viso et al, 2018, only requested environmental rearrangement); however, it was more often reported that the reinforcers requested were heterogeneous, idiosyncratic, and complex (e.g., Daryl in Schmidt et al, 2017, requested that adults talk like animals while engaging in conversations with inanimate objects, as well as play board games following special rules that always allowed Daryl to win).…”

“…The mand compliance contingency is typically described as a dynamic series of events and social interactions surrounding child mands (Bowman et al, 1997; Fisher, 2001; Schmidt et al, 2017). In the literature, it has been distinguished from traditional tests for commonly evaluated reinforcers like adult attention or access to tangibles in its ability to capture fluctuating EOs for potentially idiosyncratic reinforcers.…”

“…Since Bowman et al (1997), and especially in recent years, several authors have replicated the analysis and treatment and extended their outcomes (Betz et al, 2013; Eluri et al, 2016; Fisher et al, 2004; Greer et al, 2016; Hagopian et al, 2005; Kurtz et al, 2015; O'Connor et al, 2003; Owen et al, 2020; Roscoe et al, 2015; Schmidt et al, 2017; Torres‐Viso et al, 2018). The abovementioned replications of Bowman et al assessed the mand compliance contingency in isolation, usually following inconclusive standard functional analysis results (e.g., Iwata et al, 1982/1994).…”