The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-020-00138-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Teaching Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

to Mand “Why?”

Priya Patil 1 & Tina M. Sidener 1 & Heather Pane 1 & Sharon A. Reeve 1 &
Anjalee Nirgudkar 2

Accepted: 18 September 2020/

# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2021

Abstract
For most children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), manding for information is an
important skill that must be systematically taught. Although previous studies have
evaluated interventions for teaching other mands for information, to date no studies
have demonstrated effective procedures for teaching the mand “why?” The purpose of
the present study was to teach 3 children with ASD to mand “why?” under relevant
establishing operation conditions in 3 distinct scenarios. A trial-unique multiple-exem-
plar procedure was used to promote generalization and increase the value of informa-
tion provided across trials. All 3 participants learned to mand “why?” in all 3 scenarios
within a mean of 18 sessions (range 14–21 sessions), demonstrated generalization to
novel stimuli and settings, and maintained this skill over time. Social validity for the
intervention had an overall mean of 5.88 (range 1–7).

Keywords Mand . Information . Trial-unique . Why

Typically developing children are often proficient with many mands for information by
preschool (Rowland & Pine, 2000; Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, & Eigenheer, 2002). The
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) asserts that typically devel-
oping children ask “why?” between 2 and 3 years of age and ask “when?” and “how?”
between 4 and 5 years (ASHA, n.d.). Rowland, Pine, Lieven, and Theakston (2003)

This study is based on a thesis submitted by the first author, under the supervision of the second author, to the
Department of Applied Behavior Analysis at Caldwell University for the Master of Arts in Applied Behavior
Analysis.

* Tina M. Sidener
tsidener@caldwell.edu

1
Department of Applied Behavior Analysis, Caldwell University, 120 Bloomfield Ave., Caldwell,
NJ 07006, USA
2
Behavior Analysts of New Jersey, Paramus, NJ, USA
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

state that “what?” and “where?” typically are learned first, followed by “who?”
“when?” “how?” “why?” and lastly “which?” and “whose?” In contrast, children with
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often need specific teaching to learn these skills.
Although studies have evaluated procedures for teaching the mands “where?” (e.g.,
Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Howlett, Sidener, Progar, & Sidener, 2011; Somers, Sidener,
DeBar, & Sidener, 2014; Sundberg et al., 2002), “what?” (e.g., Esbenshade & Rosales-
Ruiz, 2001; Koegel, Koegel, Green-Hopkins, & Barnes, 2010; Williams, Donley, &
Keller, 2000), “who?” (e.g., Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Lechago, Carr, Grow, Love, &
Almason, 2010; Shillingsburg, Bowen, Valentino, & Pierce, 2014; Sundberg et al.,
2002), “when?” (e.g., Landa, Hansen, & Shillingsburg, 2017; Shillingsburg, Valentino,
Bowen, Bradley, & Zavatkey, 2011), and “how?” (e.g., Shillingsburg & Valentino,
2011), no studies to date have evaluated an intervention for teaching the mand for
information “why?” to children with ASD.
Research on teaching the mand “why?” may be limited for a number of reasons.
First, it may be difficult to bring this mand under natural reinforcer control because the
consequence (i.e., information about why) may not function as a reinforcer for some
children with ASD. To address this issue when teaching other mands for information,
most studies have established a chain in which the information ultimately resulted in
access to a preferred item. For example, in Shillingsburg and Valentino (2011),
manding “how?” resulted in information about how to unmute a computer, leading to
subsequent access to playing a game on the computer with sound (i.e., preferred
activity). Similarly, in Howlett et al. (2011), manding “where’s [preferred item]?”
resulted in information about the location of the item and subsequent access to it. It
may be challenging to apply this tactic to teaching the mand “why?” because learning
the reason for an occurrence does not often lead to access to a preferred item. For
example, when a child observes something unusual in the environment (e.g., a ladder in
the middle of the room) and asks “Why is that there?” a common consequence is
information (e.g., “I’m fixing the light.”) without access to a preferred activity.
Second, the mand “why?” may be difficult to teach because—similar to the mand
“how?”—it is challenging to arrange multiple opportunities for teaching while ensuring
that an establishing operation (EO) controls the response. That is, providing a reason
for something is typically an abolishing operation (AO) for asking “why?”; hence EOs
for the mand “why?” should be absent in such scenarios as the information is present.
For example, in the scenario described previously, providing information about the
reason for the ladder being in the middle of the room decreases the value of that
information as a consequence (and abates responses that have resulted in that conse-
quence). Therefore, that scenario could probably no longer be used as an EO to teach
the mand “why?”
Despite the challenges with developing arrangements to teach the mand “why?”
researchers have noted that it is important for children with ASD to learn this type of
skill because it may allow them to receive important, unknown information from the
environment; result in correct completion of tasks; decrease problem behavior; and
expand language skills and social opportunities (Shillingsburg et al., 2011). Therefore,
the purpose of the current study was to evaluate procedures for teaching the mand
“why?” to children diagnosed with ASD. To address the first challenge described
previously (i.e., natural reinforcer control), we taught the mand “why?” under three
different EO conditions that were selected based on observation of children with ASD
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

and typically developing children: (a) restricted access to preferred items, (b) observa-
tion of emotional responses, and (c) observation of unusual events. In addition, we
systematically included different types of natural consequences in addition to informa-
tion during some trials (i.e., help restore the environment, play, and access to an
alternative preferred item).
To address the second challenge described previously (i.e., sufficient teaching
opportunities), we employed a trial-unique procedure (Williams, Johnston, & Saunders,
2006). Previous studies have used this strategy to provide sufficient exemplars of
novel/unusual events when teaching joint attention skills. For example, Gomes, Reeve,
Brothers, Reeve, & Sidener (2020) used a trial-unique procedure to teach four children
with ASD to initiate bids for joint attention; presenting a novel event on every trial
facilitated EO control of bids. The current study used this strategy of presenting a novel
event on every trial to facilitate EO control of the mand “why?”
Different topographies of the mand “why?” were taught in each condition (e.g.,
“Why can’t I have it?” “Why is he/she doing that?” “Why is that there?”) to ensure that
manding was under the control of the EO for that precise condition rather than being
generalized manding resulting from training in another condition. Additionally, we
speculated that teaching different, specific forms of the mand for each scenario would
be more functional for the participants because they would specify to the listener what
information to provide.
We programmed for generalization using multiple-exemplar training and assessed
generalization by interspersing generalization probe trials during each session. Main-
tenance was assessed 1 week after participants reached the mastery criterion. Finally,
Board Certified Behavior Analysts and special education teachers were asked to assess
the social validity of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the study.

Method

Participants and Setting

The participants were three children who had been previously diagnosed with ASD:
Gianna (9 years, 11 months), Brandon (18 years, 4 months), and Ken (8 years, 1 month).
All participants attended educational programs that provided comprehensive behavior-
analytic instruction. They all demonstrated mastery of manding for preferred items,
manding “where?”, imitating a question/phrase with at least five syllables, initiating joint
attention with at least one type of response for two scenarios, and waiting 60 s for a
preferred item when presented with the instruction “Wait.” Caregivers and instructors
reported that the participants had not learned to mand “why?” and that this was an
important skill for them to learn. Sessions were conducted in a room in a university-
based autism center or in the participant’s home during teaching trials and in other settings
in the participant’s natural environment (e.g., outside, library) during generalization probes.

Preexperimental Assessments

Preference assessment A questionnaire based on the Reinforcer Assessment for Indi-

viduals With Severe Disabilities (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, & Amari, 1996) was
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

administered to parents and teachers of each participant before the study to identify
preferred items. The 12 highest ranked items were selected from a paired-stimulus
preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992). Teachers were also asked to identify an
additional 12 items that were similar to the high-preference items (i.e., in the same
category) to be used as alternative items during EO trials of the restricted access
scenario. Access to all high-preference items was restricted to experimental sessions
only.

Skills assessments Four skills assessments were conducted to ensure participants

demonstrated the skills necessary for inclusion in the study: repeating questions from
a voice recorder, initiating joint attention, tacting emotions, and choosing preferred
items from a pictorial choice board. All participants responded correctly and indepen-
dently during all the following assessments such that no further teaching was required.
The voice-recorder assessment evaluated whether the participants vocally imitated
three questions played on a voice recorder to ensure the prerecorded prompt used in the
study would evoke echoic responding (Somers et al., 2014). The questions used in this
assessment had four, five, and six syllables (as the models in the study) but did not
share any of the same words as the models in the study. The experimenter stood 0.5 m
from the participant and played the recorded question for the participant to repeat. A
correct response was defined as the participant emitting the complete question correctly
and independently within 5 s.
The joint attention assessment was used to evaluate whether participants initiated
bids for joint attention, as this was a necessary skill for the observation of the unusual
events scenario. A correct response was defined as the participant engaging in at least
one of these responses within 3 min of an unusual event being encountered as the
participant walked through the hallway or outside: pointing to or touching the unusual
item, manding for attention (e.g., “Look!”), looking at the object and then at the
experimenter within 5 s, or tacting it (e.g., “Umbrella!”).
The tact assessment was used to evaluate whether the participants could tact
emotions from facial expressions. The experimenter showed 14 photographs of two
different people demonstrating seven different facial expressions (used during the
study) and asked the participant “What is she/he doing?” A correct response was
defined as the participant tacting the emotion correctly and independently within 5 s
of the photograph being presented.
The choice-board assessment evaluated whether the participants could make choices
for preferred items from photographs on a choice board. The experimenter presented a
choice board with an array of 12 photographs of items identified in the preference
assessment and asked, “What do you want?” A correct response was defined as the
participant selecting a picture from the choice board and giving it to the experimenter
within 5 s (or pointing to a picture and vocally manding for it within 5 s), selecting the
corresponding item from a box, and engaging with the item.

Materials, Scenarios, and Scripts

To identify scenarios likely to function as EOs for information about why something
happened, we observed a classroom of 10 preschoolers who ranged from 2.5 to 4 years
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

old. The observation was conducted over 2 days, and each observation period lasted for
3 hr. The experimenter sat at the back of a classroom and observed the preschool
students without interacting. Results showed that the most common antecedents to
asking “why?” were seeing other children engaging in emotional responding (e.g.,
crying), and being denied access to preferred items and activities. Because of this,
restricted access to preferred items and observation of emotional responses were
selected as two of the scenarios to use in the current study for teaching the mand
“why?” We also included a third scenario, unusual events, because the participants had
demonstrated bids for joint attention to unusual events in the past.
For the restricted access condition, 24 preferred items were used for each participant.
For the unusual events condition, 60 different scenarios were used that were deemed to
be salient and not likely to occur in the setting in which sessions were conducted (see
Table 1 for examples). For the emotional responses condition, 48 videos depicting
seven emotional responses and different reasons with four different people (i.e., each
person recorded 12 videos; see Table 2 for examples) and 28 videos depicting routine
actions/activities were used. Emotional responses were those that all participants could
tact and were age appropriate. A voice recorder was used to provide echoic prompts.
The scripts used were recorded with a peer of the same gender to provide a socially
valid model, and an iPad was used to record all sessions for subsequent data collection.
During the restricted access condition, a 30 cm × 35 cm laminated board, affixed with
Velcro with 12 photographs of items on one side and three photographs of items used
for generalization probe trials on the other side, was used as a choice board. A laptop
computer was used to show videos during the emotional responses condition.

Experimental Design and Data Collection

A concurrent multiple-baseline design across three scenario types (i.e., restricted access
to preferred items, emotional responses, and unusual events) was used to demonstrate
the effects of the intervention with each participant. The order of scenario types was
counterbalanced across participants (i.e., Gianna: restricted access, emotional re-
sponses, unusual scenarios; Brandon: emotional responses, unusual scenarios, restricted
access; Ken: unusual scenarios, restricted access, emotional responses). During each
trial, the participant’s response was scored as correct or incorrect. A correct response
during EO trials was defined as the participant independently saying the full mand for
information (i.e., “Why is that there?” “Why is he/she doing that?” “Why can’t I have
it?”) within 10 s of the unavailability statement, end of the video, or the participant
indicating the unusual event. Equivalent mands (e.g., “Why is she laughing?”) were
also scored as correct. Indicating an unusual event was defined as the participant
pointing to it or touching it, manding for attention to it (e.g., “Look.”), looking at it
and then at the experimenter within 5 s, or tacting it (e.g., “Umbrella!”). AO1
(Abolishing Operation 1) trials, in which the information/reason was immediately
provided, and AO2 trials, in which the participants were not exposed to restricted
access, emotional responding, or unusual events, were scored as incorrect if the
participant said “why” at any point during the trial. Data were summarized and graphed
as the percentage of independent correct responses during EO trials, AO1 trials, AO2
trials, generalization EO trials, generalization AO1 trials, and generalization AO2 trials
per session.
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

Table 1 Examples of Unusual Scenarios

Type Scenario Reason Action

Help Pitcher of water on desk This was left over from watering the Let’s go dump it out.
plants.
Emoji pillows on floor Someone forgot these. Let’s give them to
Debbie.
Clothes scattered on The bin must have tipped over. Let’s put them back.
bathroom floor
Cotton balls in lunch bag This says “Sharon.” Let’s go put it in
Sharon’s office.
Water bottles on computer These are for all your teachers. Want to help give them
chair out?
Play Star Wars figurines in Chris was playing with them. Let’s get Chris to play
hallway with us!
Glitter bottles on table Someone was making a card. Want to play with
them?
Globe on desk Alec left it for us. Want to see it?
Pom-poms scattered on floor Tasha was playing snowball fight. Let’s play!
Red car with remote on desk Clem was playing with it. Want to try it?
Information Birds hanging from the door Gemma was playing zoo. None
only A picnic set up on sidewalk Someone’s going to have a picnic. None
Utensils spread all over I think someone is cleaning out the None
kitchen counter kitchen cabinets.
Debbie’s chair upside down Debbie must be fixing her chair. None
Flowers in big bag on Laney was pretending it’s a flower None
kitchen floor store.

Table 2 Examples of Emotional Responses

Emotion He/she’s [emotion] because …

Happy She’s eating candy. He’s jumping on the trampoline. He’s at the beach.
Tired She’s doing a lot of exercises. It’s time for bed. She played basketball.
Hurt The door shut on his finger. He tripped on a branch. Someone stepped on her foot.
Sad Her friend is going home. He dropped his ice cream. He has to leave the
playground.
Surprised It’s a surprise party. The toy alligator chomped her The pig exploded.
finger.
Scared He saw a big shark in the There’s a loud noise. It’s a haunted house.
water.
Mad Someone ate her chips. He doesn’t want to go to bed. Her iPad isn’t working.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

Experimental Procedure

Sessions were conducted up to three times per day, 4–5 days per week. Each session
consisted of 12 trials: five EO trials, two AO1 trials, two AO2 trials, and generalization
probe trials for EO, AO1, and AO2. Trials were quasi-randomly ordered every session,
with no more than two EO trials in a row. The purpose of EO trials was to contrive an
EO to teach the mand “why?” for the particular condition. The purpose of the AO1 and
AO2 trials was to demonstrate that manding was under the control of an EO and not
something about the experimental preparation. During AO1 trials, participants were
immediately provided with a reason relevant to each condition (i.e., why they could not
have an item, why a person was having an emotional response, why there was an
unusual event) so there was no EO for manding “why?” During AO2 trials, participants
were not exposed to restricted access, emotional responding, or unusual events; that is,
they were given immediate access to items after selecting from the choice board,
watched a video with no emotional responding, and encountered nothing unusual in
the environment, so there was no EO for manding “why?”
A trial-unique procedure was used for all three scenarios to maintain the value of
information for the mand “why?” Within each scenario, relevant features such as
preferred items, unavailability statements, reasons, and alternative items (restricted
access scenario); emotional responses, people, and reasons (emotional responses sce-
nario); and unusual events, reasons, and related actions (unusual events scenario) were
counterbalanced across trials and trial types so that manding would not come under the
control of any specific features or combination of features.

Baseline During all trials in baseline sessions of the restricted access scenario, the
experimenter presented a choice board with photographs of 12 high-preference items
and said “Which one do you want?” or “Pick one.” During AO1 trials in baseline, when
the participant selected from the choice board, the experimenter provided an unavail-
ability statement, a reason, put that item away, and offered an alternative, related item.
For example, if a participant selected black olives, the experimenter said “Oh! You
can’t have these because they’re dirty!” threw the black olives away in the trash, said
“But you can have these,” and gave the participant green olives. During AO2 trials in
baseline, when the item was selected, the experimenter provided immediate access to
the item and said “Sure! You can have it.” During EO trials in baseline, when the item
was selected, the experimenter provided an unavailability statement only (e.g., “You
can’t have it.”). If the participant manded “Why can’t I have it?” within 10 s, the
experimenter provided the reason, put that item away, and offered an alternative,
related item as described previously. If the participant did not mand correctly within
10 s, the experimenter said something equivalent to “OK, let’s see what’s next” and put
the items away.
During all trials in baseline sessions of the emotional responses scenario, the
experimenter showed a video of someone engaging in an emotional response. During
AO1 trials in baseline, 10 s after the video ended, the experimenter provided a reason
using a tone and facial expression that matched the emotion and played the next part of
the video that showed the reason for the emotional responding. For example, if a
participant watched a video of a girl laughing, the experimenter paused the video and
said “She’s laughing because someone tickled her!” and played the next part of the
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

video that showed someone tickling the girl. During AO2 trials in baseline, a video of
someone engaging in a routine action with a neutral expression was shown to the
participant. During EO trials in baseline, if the participant manded “Why is he/she
doing that?” within 10 s of the video ending, the experimenter provided the reason as
described previously. If the participant did not mand correctly within 10 s, the
experimenter said something equivalent to “OK, let’s see what’s next.”
During all trials of baseline sessions of the unusual events scenario, the experimenter
walked with the participant to a different room or hallway or outside. During AO1 trials
in baseline, within 10 s of the participant indicating the unusual event, the experimenter
provided a reason for it being there and an action related to it. For example, if a
participant opened his or her backpack and found a pillow, the experimenter said “This
says ‘Meghan’—Meghan must have left this here—let’s go put it in her office” and
walked with the participant to Meghan’s office to put it there. During AO2 trials in
baseline, there was nothing unusual in the environment. For example, when a participant
walked into the classroom and there was nothing unusual, the participant continued with
his or her daily schedule. During EO trials in baseline, if the participant correctly
manded “Why is that there?” within 10 s, the experimenter immediately provided a
reason and continued as described previously. If the participant did not mand correctly
within 10 s, the experimenter said something equivalent to “OK, let’s see what’s next.”

Mand training Training sessions were identical to baseline sessions with the following
exceptions. During EO trials of the restricted access scenario, when the participant
selected the item, the experimenter immediately provided an unavailability statement
and played the recorded prompt “Why can’t I have it?” out of the participant’s view.
After the participant successfully echoed the model, the experimenter immediately
provided an appropriate reason and offered an alternative item in a similar category.
During EO trials of the emotional responses scenario, 10 s after the participant watched
the video, the experimenter played the recorded prompt “Why is he/she doing that?”
out of the participant’s view. After the participant successfully echoed the model, the
experimenter immediately provided the reason and played the next part of the video
that showed the reason for the emotional responding. For example, after the participant
watched the first part of the video, which showed a boy hurt (i.e., saying “Ouch!”), and
successfully echoed the recorded prompt, the experimenter immediately said “He’s hurt
because the door shut on his finger!” and played the second part of the video showing
the reason the boy was hurt (i.e., his finger getting caught in the door). During EO trials
of the unusual events scenario, within 10 s of the participant indicating the unusual
event, the experimenter played the recorded prompt “Why is that there?” out of the
participant’s view. After the participant engaged in the echoic, the experimenter
immediately provided an appropriate reason and then suggested (a) helping to fix the
situation, (b) playing with the item, or (c) nothing else.
After meeting criterion during the full-script condition (i.e., 100% correct responding
with or without scripts for two consecutive sessions), a baseline (no-script) probe was
conducted to test for independent manding. If a participant responded at 100% accuracy
for two consecutive sessions independently, the skill was considered mastered.

Generalization To assess generalization, three generalization trials were conducted

under baseline conditions during each session. These trials were conducted by novel
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

instructors or caregivers (i.e., familiar to the participant but not involved in the study) in
novel settings (e.g., outside, on a walk, in the library). During EO trials of the restricted
access scenario, we used a different colored choice board with photographs of three
items that were not identified via the preference assessment but were nominated by
teachers/caregivers as items that were manded for on a daily basis. During EO trials of
the emotional responses scenario, a novel instructor acted out emotional responses
in vivo. During EO trials of the unusual events scenario, novel unusual events occurred.
For all AO1 and AO2 trials during generalization for all three scenarios, procedures
similar to baseline were followed.

Maintenance Maintenance probes were conducted 1 week after a participant reached

the mastery criterion, and followed the same procedures as baseline. Instructors/
caregivers were asked to provide two opportunities to mand for each scenario for the
EO condition and two opportunities for the AO1 and AO2 conditions each day between
the conclusion of the study and the maintenance probe.

Interobserver Agreement and Procedural Integrity

Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected for 50% of baseline sessions,
intervention sessions, and maintenance sessions. An agreement was defined as both
observers recording a trial as correct or incorrect. IOA was calculated using point-by-
point agreement by dividing the number of agreements over the total number of
agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100%. IOA was 100% for all three
participants.
Procedural integrity data were taken during 50% of all baseline, intervention, and
maintenance sessions for all three participants by secondary observers via video
recordings. A trial was scored as correct if all of the following were correct: statements,
prompts, consequences, materials, and timing. Procedural integrity data were calculated
by dividing the total number of correct trials over the total number of correct and
incorrect trials and multiplying by 100%. Mean procedural integrity was 98% (range
97%–100%) for Brandon and 100% for Gianna and Ken.

Social Validity

Three special education teachers and two Board Certified Behavior Analysts were
given brief descriptions of the procedures and shown videos of each condition. They
completed a modified Treatment Acceptability Rating Form–Revised (TARF-R;
Reimers & Wacker, 1988), which uses a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree
strongly; 7 = agree strongly).

Results

Data on the percentage of correct responses for all participants are presented in Figs. 1
through 3. As can be seen in Fig. 1, during baseline Gianna responded correctly during
AO1 and AO2 trials and did not mand “why?” during EO trials. During mand training
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

in the restricted access to preferred items condition (top panel), Gianna reached the
mastery criterion with the full script in six sessions. Although she did not ask “why?”
during two EO trials (Sessions 13 and 15), asked “where’s [item]?” during one AO1
trial (Session 14), and asked “why?” during one AO1 trial (Session 15), no procedural
modifications were needed. When the script was removed, she met the mastery
criterion in two sessions. During mand training in the emotional responses condition
(middle panel), Gianna reached the mastery criterion with the full script in six sessions.
When the script was removed, she met the mastery criterion in three sessions. During
mand training in the unusual events condition (bottom panel), Gianna reached the
mastery criterion with the full script and with the script removed in two sessions each.
As can be seen in the top panel of Fig. 2, during baseline of the emotional responses
condition, Brandon responded correctly during AO1 and AO2 trials and did not mand
“why?” during EO trials. He did not ask “why?” during five EO trials (Sessions 11 and 17)
and asked “why?” during one AO1 trial (Session 17). He reached the mastery criterion
with the full script in five sessions and with the script removed in three sessions. A similar
pattern was observed in the unusual events condition (middle panel): He reached the
mastery criterion with the full script in four sessions and with the script removed in two
sessions. A different pattern was observed during the restricted access condition. Although
his caregivers reported that he had not previously learned to mand “why?” and he did not
mand “why?” during baseline of the other conditions, during the first four sessions of
baseline of the restricted access condition (bottom panel), Brandon manded “why not?”
“how come?” and “why can’t I have [item]?” during 50% of EO trials. However, he also
made errors during 50% of EO trials, 50% of AO1 trials, and 100% of EO generalization
trials of those sessions (i.e., for the AO1 trials, Brandon manded “why?” even when the
instructor provided a reason, and for the EO trials and the EO generalization trials,
Brandon did not mand “why?”). After reaching the mastery criterion in the emotional
responses condition (i.e., top panel), he subsequently scored 100% during all trials of the
next four sessions in the restricted access condition without teaching.
As can be seen in Fig. 3, during baseline Ken responded correctly during AO1 and
AO2 trials and did not mand “why?” during EO trials. During mand training in the
unusual events condition (top panel), he reached the mastery criterion for the full-script
condition in five sessions and for the no-script condition in four sessions. During this
scenario, Ken asked “why?” during two AO1 trials (Sessions 10 and 17). During mand
training in the restricted access condition (middle panel), Ken reached the mastery
criterion for the full-script condition in three sessions and for the no-script condition in
two sessions. Similarly, in the emotional responses condition, he reached the mastery
criterion for both the full-script and no-script conditions in two sessions each.
As with acquisition, all participants demonstrated generalized manding quickly. Only one
participant, Ken, made an error during a generalization trial of the no-script condition. During
Session 18, during the AO1 trial, after the experimenter provided the reason for the unusual
event, Ken asked “Where should the star bucket go?” Interestingly, during the full-script
condition of the emotional responses condition, Gianna initially engaged in errors during
generalization EO trials and generalization AO1 trials and responded with laughter and
stereotypy (e.g., when the novel instructor acted out the scenario for surprise, Gianna started
laughing and talking about a cartoon video clip). Subsequently, a procedural modification
was made during Sessions 23, 24, and 25 to temporarily make the generalization conditions
(i.e., in vivo presentation of emotional responding) more like the teaching conditions (i.e.,
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

Baseline Full Script No Script Maintenance

100

75

50

25
Restricted Access

0
Percentage of Trials with Independent Correct Responses

100

75

50

25
Emotional Responses

0
100

75

50

25

Unusual Scenarios

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41
Sessions
EO AO2 Gen EO Gen AO1 Gen AO2 AO1

Fig. 1 Percentage of correct responses during EO trials, AO1 trials, AO2 trials, and generalization probes
across each scenario for Gianna

video presentation of emotional responding). To do this, a novel instructor (in a novel setting)
held the laptop computer facing the participant and played a training video of emotional
responding. Following Session 25, this modification was removed, and Gianna subsequently
met the mastery criterion within two sessions. All skills remained at 100% correct for all
participants during maintenance probes 1 week later. On the modified TARF-R, respondents
rated the social validity of the intervention with an overall mean of 5.88 (range 1–7).

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate procedures for teaching the mand “why?”
to three children with ASD. All participants learned and maintained a repertoire of
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

Baseline Full Script No Script Maintenance

100

75

50
Percentage of Trials with Independent Correct Responses

25

Emotional
EO
0

AO2
100

GEO

GAO 75
GAO
2
AO
50

25

Unusual
0
100

75

50

25

Restricted
Access
0
1 6 11 16 21 26
Sessions

Fig. 2 Percentage of correct responses during EO trials, AO1 trials, AO2 trials, and generalization probes
across each scenario for Brandon

manding in three distinct situations and demonstrated generalization with novel stimuli,
instructors, and locations in the following number of teaching (full-script plus no-script)
sessions and trials: Gianna in 21 sessions, 252 trials; Brandon in 4 sessions, 168 trials; and
Ken in 18 sessions, 216 trials. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to
evaluate procedures for teaching this skill to this population. These findings replicate and
extend other research on teaching mands for information that contrived EO and AO trials
(e.g., Howlett et al., 2011; Shillingsburg & Valentino, 2011).
The current study included three types of scenarios—restricted access to preferred
items, emotional responses, and unusual events—to teach the mand “why?” These
scenarios were selected based on observation of typically developing children and the
participants. Future studies might evaluate other types of scenarios that might evoke the
mand “why?” Although we conducted a descriptive assessment with preschool children
over 2 days (6 hr), we only observed two types of antecedents for this mand. It is
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

Baseline Full Script No Script Maintenance

100

75

50

25
Unusual
Scenarios
0
Percentage of Trials with Independent Correct Responses

100
GAO2

AO2
75
EO

GEO

GAO 50

AO

25

Restricted
Access
0

100

75

50

25
Emotional
Responses
0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41
Sessions

Fig. 3 Percentage of correct responses during EO trials, AO1 trials, AO2 trials, and generalization probes
across each scenario for Ken

possible that observing a different age group in different settings could assist in
identifying other important EOs for manding “why?” in typically developing children.
It would also be helpful for behavior analysts to collect objective data on topographies
and common antecedents and consequences of this mand (and other mands for
information) as they emerge in typically developing children. This might contribute
to a more thorough understanding of the functions of these mands and how we might
teach them more effectively and efficiently to children with ASD. Finally, clinicians
might take advantage of EOs specific to their clients to teach this mand. For example,
some children with ASD who experience changes in their routine as particularly
aversive may have a strong EO for learning about reasons for those changes.
Trial-unique multiple-exemplar training was used to promote accurate stimulus/EO
control and generalization. First, in the restricted access condition, 12 preferred items and a
minimum of three unavailability statements were used. Second, in the emotional responses
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

condition, four different peers and seven different emotions were used. Third, in the
unusual events condition, four different locations and 60 different events were used.
Although this required much planning and time, this cost may be deemed worth the
benefit of rapid acquisition, generalization, maintenance, and accurate EO control of this
mand. Future studies are needed to determine if similar results can be obtained more
efficiently. For example, it may be possible to use the same/similar scenarios and provide
different reasons (e.g., a ladder in the middle of the room: fixing the light, painting the
ceiling). However, it is important to note that once the reason is provided for a particular
scenario, the participant may not have an EO to mand “why?” in the future for the
same/similar scenario. Additionally, it may not be deemed socially valid for the participant
to continue manding “why?” in the same situation after the reason has been provided.
To bring “why?” under natural reinforcer control, we always provided information
as the consequence for the mand. However, we speculated that we might be able to
enhance the value of the consequences we provided; we did this in different ways in
each condition. In the restricted access condition, during EO and AO1 trials, although
participants did not receive the preferred items manded for, they were given an item in
the same category (e.g., different type of cookie, olive, chocolate). In the emotional
responding condition, we used videos instead of in vivo presentation to decrease the
number of staff needed for teaching, to have models that could be used with other
students, and to increase attending. We also thought pausing the video after showing
the emotional responding and then pressing play to show the event that caused the
responding would be particularly reinforcing. Finally, in the unusual events condition,
we delivered three types of consequences we anecdotally observed to occur after people
ask “why?”: information only, interacting with the items, and helping fix the problem.
Clinicians and researchers might consider other types of scenario presentations and
consequences that would be reinforcing for participants and promote natural reinforcer
control.
The purpose of having two AO conditions rather than just one as in previous studies
(e.g., Howlett et al., 2011; Landa et al., 2017) was to establish that manding was under
the control of an EO and not something about the experimental preparation. The two
AO conditions also allowed for assessment and demonstration of appropriate anteced-
ent control for the mand “why?” for all three scenarios. During AO1 trials, participants
were provided with a reason relevant to each condition (i.e., why they could not have
an item, why a person was having an emotional response, why there was an unusual
event) so there was no EO for manding “why?” During AO2 trials, participants were
immediately given access to the preferred item or not exposed to an emotional response
or unusual scenario so there was no EO for manding “why?” We deemed this important
for promoting EO control; however, it is possible that they were unnecessary. Future
studies might evaluate the necessity of these conditions. A second function of the AO2
trials that we speculated might be particularly important for the restricted access
condition was that they ensured that the participants sometimes received the specific
items they manded for. That is, without AO2 trials, manding would have always
resulted in being told they could not have the specific item they chose and could only
have alternative items. This would not have resembled the natural environment and
could have potentially resulted in manding decreasing over time.
A voice recorder was used to deliver echoic prompts. All participants mastered the
mand “why?” after the full-script condition, and it was unnecessary to use the partial-
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

script condition for any of the participants. A voice recorder was used to deliver echoic
prompts, rather than in vivo vocal models, as it has been suggested that the former may
be easier to fade (Howlett et al., 2011). Future studies might compare the effectiveness,
efficiency, and social validity of these types of prompts. It should be noted that all
participants in the current study had prior exposure to prompts via voice recorders and
to choice boards and also displayed specific skills relevant to the scenarios (i.e., joint
attention, tacting emotional responses). Clinicians should assess necessary prerequisite
skills for potential learners, as it may help with faster and efficient skill acquisition and
also help with effective prompts and prompt-fading strategies.
For all participants, manding “why?” maintained 1 week after mastery. During the
week between mastery and the maintenance probe, teachers provided at least two
opportunities to practice manding “why?” each day to assist with maintenance over
time. Successful maintenance may have resulted from teaching during the study and/or
practicing during the week.
Social validity was assessed via a modified version of the TARF-R (Reimers &
Wacker, 1988) and indicated that the procedures used in this study were time consum-
ing for the experimenter but acceptable to achieve the desired results. Although the
procedures for the current study were complex, all participants acquired the mand
“why?” in all three scenarios and also maintained the skill after 1 week. The total
number of sessions for all three participants did not exceed 21 sessions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Three to four years. Retrieved from http://www.asha.
org/public/speech/development/34/
Endicott, K., & Higbee, T. S. (2007). Contriving motivating operations to evoke mands for information in
preschoolers with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rasd.2006.10.003
Esbenshade, P. H., & Rosales-Ruiz, J. (2001). Programming common stimuli to promote generalized
question-asking. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/
109830070100300402
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of
two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a
systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 101, 15–25.
Gomes, S. R., Reeve, S. A., Brothers, K. J., Reeve, K. F. & Sidener, T. M. (2020). Establishing a generalized
repertoire of initiating bids for joint attention in children with autism. Behavior Modification, 44, 394–
428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518822499
 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

Howlett, M., Sidener, T. M., Progar, P. R., & Sidener, D. W. (2011). Manipulation of motivating operations
and use of a script-fading procedure to teach mands for location to children with language delays. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 943–947. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-943
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Green-Hopkins, I., & Barnes, C. C. (2010). Brief report: Question-asking and
collateral language acquisition in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
40, 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0896-z
Landa, R. K., Hansen, B., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2017). Teaching mands for information using “when?” to
children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.
387
Lechago, S. A., Carr, J. E., Grow, L. L., Love, J. R., & Almason, S. M. (2010). Mands for information
generalize across establishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 381–395. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-381
Reimers, T. M., & Wacker, D. P. (1988). Parents’ ratings of the acceptability of behavioral treatment
recommendations made in an outpatient clinic: A preliminary analysis of the influence of treatment
effectiveness. Behavioral Disorders, 14(1), 7–15.
Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: “What
children do know?”. Journal of Child Language, 27, 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0305000999004055
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M., & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of acquisition order in
wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language, 30, 609–635.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005695
Sundberg, M. L., Loeb, M., Hale, L., & Eigenheer, P. (2002). Contriving establishing operations to teach
mands for information. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18, 15–29.
Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., Valentino, A. L., & Pierce, L. E. (2014). Mands for information using
“who?” and “which?” in the presence of establishing and abolishing operations. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 47, 136–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.101
Shillingsburg, M. A., & Valentino, A. L. (2011). Teaching a child with autism to mand for information using
“how?”. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393100
Shillingsburg, M., Valentino, A. L., Bowen, C. N., Bradley, D., & Zavatkay, D. (2011). Teaching children
with autism to request information. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 670–679. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF03393100
Somers, A., Sidener, T. M., DeBar, R. M., & Sidener, D. W. (2014). Establishing concurrent mands for items
and mands for information about location in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 30,
29–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-014-0007-x
Williams, G., Donley, C., & Keller, J. (2000). Teaching children with autism to ask questions about hidden
objects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 627–630. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-627
Williams, D. C., Johnston, M. D., & Saunders, K. J. (2006). Intertrial sources of stimulus control and delayed
matching-to-sample performance in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 253–
267. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2006.67-01

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.