JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2017, 9999, n/a–n/a NUMBER 9999 ()

TEACHING MANDS FOR INFORMATION USING ‘WHEN’

TO CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
ROBIN K. LANDA
MARCUS AUTISM CENTER

BETHANY HANSEN
MARCUS AUTISM CENTER AND EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

AND

M. ALICE SHILLINGSBURG
MARCUS AUTISM CENTER AND EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Previous research has evaluated contrived motivating operations to teach mands for information.
However, literature evaluating acquisition of the mand when? is comparatively limited. As an
extension of Shillingsburg, Bowen, Valentino, & Pierce (2014), we taught three children with
autism to engage in mands for information using when under alternating conditions in which a
contrived establishing operation was present (EOP) or absent (EOA). Following training with a
constant prompt delay, all participants acquired the mand for information and demonstrated
correct use of the provided information and a decrease in inappropriate attempts to access
restricted items.
Key words: autism, establishing operations, mands for information, requesting when, verbal
behavior

Mands for information occur under the con-
trol of an establishing operation (EO) and
result in information that often evokes addi-
tional behavior maintained by a related rein-
forcer. For example, when it is time to go
outside to play a child may ask, “Where is my
shoe?” to which an adult might respond, “It’s
by the door.” In this example, the missing shoe
functions as an EO that increases the value of
the information related to its location. The
information, “It’s by the door,” both reinforces
the mand and evokes a chain of behavior
(i.e., going to indicated location) that ends with
access to the shoe. Mands for information may
increase the efficiency with which children’s
Correspondence should be sent to Alice Shillingsburg,
PhD, BCBA-D, Program Director, Language and Learning
Clinic, Marcus Autism Center, 1920 Briarcliff Rd. NE,
Atlanta, GA 30329. E-mail: alice.shillingsburg@choa.org_
404-785-9400.
doi: 10.1002/jaba.387
© 2017 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
1
behavior contacts reinforcement. In other
words, asking for the location of the shoe is
likely more efficient than searching the room.
Several studies illustrate the utility of contriv-
ing establishing operations (EOs) to teach chil-
dren to mand for information, often in the form
of wh— questions (e.g., Betz, Higbee, & Pol-
lard, 2010; Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Lechago,
Carr, Grow, Love, & Almason, 2010; Shillings-
burg & Valentino, 2011; Shillingsburg, Valen-
tino, Bowen, Bradley, & Zavatkay, 2011;
Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, & Eigenheer, 2002;
Williams, Donley, & Keller, 2000). Although
contrived EOs may increase the value of infor-
mation, analysis of discriminated responding
through EO manipulation is necessary to deter-
mine whether the acquired skill functions as a
mand. Recent studies have compared question-
asking under alternating conditions in which a
contrived EO was present (EOP) or absent
(EOA) to verify functional control for the
2 ROBIN K. LANDA et al.
mands where? (Howlett, Sidener, Progar, &
Sidener, 2011), how? (Lechago, Howell, Cacca-
velle, & Peterson, 2013; Shillingsburg,
Bowen, & Valentino, 2014), which? and who?
(Shillingsburg, Bowen, Valentino, & Pierce,
2014), and I don’t know, please tell me
(Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010), which may
be considered a form of what? For example,
Howlett et al. (2011) taught two children with
language delays to mand for information related
to missing items, using where under alternating
EOP and EOA conditions. Participants were
instructed to select and retrieve a preferred item
with which to play at the start of each trial. Dur-
ing EOA trials, the preferred item was present
in its typical location, whereas during EOP
trials, it was missing. Script fading during EOP
trials (both participants) and error correction
during EOA trials (one participant) were used
to teach children to mand where? Following
treatment, both participants emitted the ques-
tion where? exclusively during the EOP condi-
tion. The inclusion of participants’ initial
selection of the tangible reinforcer at the begin-
ning of trials increased the likelihood of EO
control, and the analysis of discriminated
responding under the EOP condition, relative
to the EOA condition, verified it.
Analyzing discriminated responding under
EOP and EOA conditions allows for verifica-
tion of control by the relevant EO. However,
practical analysis requires additional measures,
such as the extent to which participants
respond to information delivered contingent on
the mand. Shillingsburg, Bowen, Valentino, &
Pierce (2014) taught the mands which? and
who? to children with autism under contrived
conditions in which information was needed
(EOP) or not needed (EOA) to access a pre-
ferred item. To enhance assurance of EO con-
trol, trials were conducted following
participant-initiated requests for items. A con-
stant time-delay (Schuster, Gast, Wolery, &
Guiltinan, 1988) procedure was used to
prompt the mand for information during
treatment. In addition, the authors reported
participant approaches to the correct person in
possession of the item (for who?) and location
in which the item was stored (for which?). Fol-
lowing training, all participants emitted mands
for information under EOP conditions. In
addition, participants demonstrated an increase
in correct approach responses following acquisi-
tion of mands for information in the EOP con-
dition, indicating correct use of the provided
information. Results indicate that the acquired
response not only functioned as a mand, but
also increased the likelihood that children’s
attempts to access reinforcers (i.e., approach
responses) would be successful.
In comparison to other mands for informa-
tion, research investigating the mand when? is
limited (Shillingsburg et al., 2011). The mand
when? may be evoked by a variety of verbal and
visual stimuli correlated with delayed access to
reinforcers. For example, following a child’s
request to play outside, parents might respond
“not right now,” which may evoke the mand
“when?” Alternatively, children may ask,
“When may I play outside?” following an
observation that it is raining. Typical responses
to the mand when? may include contingency-
specifying information, such as “after you do
your homework”; time-specifying information,
such as “in 15 minutes”; or event-specifying
information, such as “after I finish cooking” or;
“after it stops raining”. Information may also
be provided that does not enable accurate pre-
diction of reinforcer availability, such as “I
don’t know” or “later”. Teaching children to
obtain and respond to information related to
reinforcer availability may allow children to
access reinforcers in an efficient manner during
delays when emission of problem behaviors is
likely occur. For example, the response—“after
you do your homework”—may evoke a chain
of responses that exerts discriminative control
over mands. In other words, children may learn
to emit a subsequent mand following, but not
prior to, completion of homework. This may
 MANDS FOR INFORMATION USING ‘WHEN’
increase both the proportion of mands that
result in reinforcement and the probability of
appropriate behavior during delays.
Despite the potential benefits of teaching
children to mand “when?” we are aware of only
one study investigating procedures to teach this
skill (Shillingsburg et al., 2011). Shillingsburg
et al. taught two children with autism to
request information using who, which, where,
and when questions. To contrive the relevant
EO for the question when? therapists presented
a verbal stimulus such as, “We are going to play
on the computer, but not right now.” During
treatment, if participants did not emit a mand
within 3 s, the verbal stimulus was represented
with a vocal prompt. Information related to a
behavior requirement that led to the targeted
activity was provided following prompted and
independent mands for information. For exam-
ple, if the participant asked, “When can I
play?” the therapist responded with, “after you
give me a high five.” Access to the computer
was provided following compliance with the
behavior requirement. Both participants
acquired the mand when? However, several lim-
itations warrant additional research. First, this
study did not include a preference assessment
prior to trials and therapists did not wait for an
independent mand for the activity to initiate
trials. Doing either of these would have indi-
cated that the delayed activities were preferred
at the time, enhancing assurance of EO con-
trol. Second, the authors did not conduct alter-
nating EOP and EOA conditions to verify
functional control as a mand. Third, this study
did not include data representing use of the
information provided to demonstrate utility of
the skill. In other words, it is not clear if the
participant “used” the information to complete
a task or wait an appropriate interval until the
activity was available.
Use of contingency-specifying information
might be evaluated by examining the extent to
which the information (e.g., “after you do your
homework”) results in completion of the
3
designated task and discriminative control of
requests. Evaluating the use of contingency-
specifying information might be an important
prerequisite to teaching a complex repertoire of
responding to information related to reinforcer
delays. Therefore, the primary purpose of this
study was to extend Shillingsburg, Bowen,
Valentino, & Pierce (2014) by teaching the
mand for information when? under alternating
EOP and EOA conditions and by evaluating
the utility of the mand by examining partici-
pant use of contingency-specifying information.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Three children diagnosed with autism and
enrolled in an intensive behavior intervention
program focused on communication deficits
participated in the study. Each emitted
multiple-word vocal mands, could complete a
variety of independent academic and self-care
tasks, and consistently followed receptive
instructions. Haley, a 6-year-old female, exhib-
ited no mands for information of any type.
Brian, a 7-year-old male, exhibited the mands
for information who? and which? but did not
exhibit the mand when? Daisy, a 6-year-old
female, was observed to emit mands for infor-
mation, including what? and who? but did not
exhibit the mand when? Both Brian and Daisy
had been previously taught to mand using wh-
questions using similar EOA and EOP proce-
dures. All participants displayed a history of
intolerance to denied or delayed reinforcers in
the form of persistent mands, repeated attempts
to grab items, tantrums, or some combination
of these behaviors. The Verbal Behavior Mile-
stones Assessment and Placement Program
(VB-MAPP; Sundberg, 2008) was conducted
for each participant upon admission into the
clinical program. At the time of participation,
participants’ overall VB-MAPP scores ranged
from 96–125. Scores fell primarily in the
beginning Level 3 range for the Mand (range,
4 ROBIN K. LANDA et al.
10–12), Tact (range, 9.5-11), and Listener
(range, 10–11) domains, corresponding with a
developmental age of 30–48 months. Scores for
the Intraverbal domain fell primarily within the
Level 2 range (range, 3.5-5.5), corresponding
with a developmental age of 18–30 months
(individual scores available upon request).
Sessions were conducted within the partici-
pants’ respective classrooms, which contained
several desks and chairs, a large table for group
instruction, play areas, and leisure and aca-
demic materials. During each session, partici-
pants were instructed to complete various
behavior requirements, such as cleaning a table,
picking up toys, washing hands, sorting silver-
ware, and common classroom tasks, such as
independent activities and cleaning up beanbag
squares used for seating arrangements. Materi-
als necessary to complete these activities were
provided at every session and included toys,
independent activities (e.g., matching games
and worksheets), soap, towels, sanitizing wipes,
plastic utensils, a silverware tray (Haley only),
and beanbags (Daisy only). Although the time
required to complete each task differed, in gen-
eral, each task took no longer than 2 min to
complete. Highly preferred items were visually
present, but out of reach of the participant dur-
ing sessions.
Response Measurement and Interobserver
Agreement (IOA)
The primary dependent variable was the per-
centage of trials with mands for information
during EOP and EOA conditions. Mands for
information were defined as the vocal response,
“When?” (Brian and Daisy) or “When can I
have [item]?” (Haley). Secondary measures
included the percentage of trials with correct
performance of the behavior requirement and
the percentage of appropriate and inappropriate
initiations for reinforcers. Correct performance
of the behavior requirement was defined as
completing the therapist-instructed behavior
with no more than 5 consecutive seconds of
off-task behavior. We considered the child to
be off-task when he or she physically oriented
away from materials (e.g., moved out of seat or
away from the designated area) or when the
child shifted his or her gaze away from materi-
als in the absence of manipulating them. That
is, shifting eye gaze while drying hands would
not have been considered off-task behavior, but
shifting eye gaze while standing at the sink
without touching the faucet, soap, or paper
towels would be considered off-task. Initiations
were defined as vocal or physical attempts to
access preferred items (i.e., by manding, reach-
ing, or grabbing).
Trained observers used paper and pencil to
record data across 5-trial (preassessment) or 10-
trial (mands for information) sessions. Mands
for information were scored as independent
when the participant emitted the vocal response
within 5 s of a therapist’s denial of the item
and were scored as prompted when they
occurred within 5 s of a therapist’s prompt.
Correct completion of the behavior requirement
was scored as independent when the participant
initiated the therapist-instructed behavior
within 5 s of the contingency-specifying infor-
mation. The completion of the behavior
requirement was scored as prompted when the
participant initiated the behavior within 5 s of a
therapist’s prompt. Initiations for reinforcers
were scored as appropriate when they occurred
within 10 s of completion of the therapist-
instructed behavior (e.g., after washing hands)
and as inappropriate when they occurred prior
to completion of the behavior. The number of
trials with independent responses, prompted
responses, and nonresponses for participants’
mands for information and correct performance
of the behavior requirement was divided by the
total number of trials to yield a percentage of
trials with each type of response. The frequency
of appropriate or inappropriate initiations was
divided by the total frequency of all initiations
to yield percentages of each.
 MANDS FOR INFORMATION USING ‘WHEN’
Interobserver agreement (IOA) was assessed
by having a second, independent observer
simultaneously collect data during 35% and
100% of preassessment sessions for Haley and
Daisy, respectively. IOA for preassessment ses-
sions was not collected for Brian. During mands
for information sessions, agreement data were
collected during 50% of sessions for Haley and
Daisy and 46% of sessions for Brian. Mean
agreement was calculated using the total agree-
ment method. During the preassessment, mean
agreement was 95% (range, 90%–100%) for
Haley and 98% (range, 96%–100%) for Daisy.
For mands for information sessions, mean
agreement was 96% (range, 90%–100%) for
Haley, 97% (range, 90%–100%) for Brian, and
96% for Daisy (range, 85%–100%). Procedural
integrity data were collected on whether the
therapist initiated trials following a participant’s
mand for an item, responded to mands accord-
ing to the designated condition, differentially
reinforced appropriate initiations, and employed
prompting as outlined by the procedures. Data
were collected for at least 45% of all sessions for
all participants and indicated 100% integrity.
Preassessment
Preassessments were conducted prior to eval-
uating mands for information. The purpose of
the preassessment was to evaluate if
contingency-specifying information given by an
adult resulted in completion of the required
behavior followed by appropriate initiations for
the item (i.e., manding for the item following,
but not prior to, completion of the behavior
requirement). These prerequisite behaviors
would be required to access the initially denied
preferred item during mands for information
training. We therefore assumed that
contingency-specifying information would not
act as an effective consequence for mands for
information during training if it did not evoke
these prerequisites. Therefore, we taught partici-
pants to respond to contingency-specifying
5
statements prior to mands for information train-
ing if they did not do so in the preassessment.
Sessions consisted of five trials and were com-
pleted within a few days. We conducted sessions
during breaks from academic activities and class-
room routines, during which we presented a
variety of preferred items in view but out of
reach. Preferred items included previously iden-
tified edible and tangible reinforcers (e.g., juice,
chips, books, iPad). If the participant manded
for an item, we either provided immediate
access to the reinforcer (about one third of the
time) or initiated a trial. If the participant did
not emit a mand, we provided 30-s access to
each item and then removed it until a mand was
evoked. The therapist initiated trials by
responding to a mand such as, “May I have a
snack?” with a contingency-specifying statement
such as, “After you put away your toys,” and
starting a timer. Behavior requirements were
selected based on parent and teacher reports of
common behavioral expectations during delays.
For example, we selected sorting utensils as one
of Haley’s behavior requirements, as Haley’s
mother expressed she would like her to com-
plete household chores, such as putting the
dishes away, prior to watching television or
playing on the computer. All items necessary to
complete the behavior requirements were pres-
ent across all trials and any potential extraneous
prompts or visual cues were withheld. Behavior
requirements were randomly assigned across
trials. We refer to repeated item or activity
mands that occurred during the trial as initia-
tions, to distinguish them from the mand that
started a trial. Inappropriate initiations
(i.e., repeated attempts to access the denied item
prior to completing the behavior requirement)
were ignored or blocked. Appropriate initiations
(i.e., attempts to access the item within 10 s of
completing the required behavior) resulted in
30 s access to the reinforcer. Trials ended within
10 s of completion of the behavior requirement
or following 45 s, if the behavior requirement
was not initiated.
6 ROBIN K. LANDA et al.
Mastery criteria for the preassessment con-
sisted of 100% correct behavior performance
and 100% appropriate initiations across one
(Daisy) or two (Haley and Brian) consecutive
sessions. Participant specific criteria were cho-
sen based on previous experience with the par-
ticipants’ learning histories in order to keep the
preassessment procedures as short as possible.
Once mastery was met, the participant pro-
ceeded with baseline and intervention condi-
tions for teaching mands for information. If
these criteria were not met, training was con-
ducted prior to moving forward. During train-
ing, a constant time delay was implemented to
teach the participant to complete the behavior
requirement and to subsequently mand for the
reinforcer. Using combined vocal and gestural
prompts, the therapist immediately prompted
the participant to complete the behavior
requirement within 0–1 s following the
contingency-specific statement. A vocal prompt
was subsequently delivered within 0–1 s of
completion of the behavior to prompt the par-
ticipant to vocally mand for the reinforcer
(i.e., emit an appropriate initiation). Following
one session with 100% of trials with the correct
behavior performed and 100% appropriate
initiations, the prompt delay was extended to
3 s. Training continued until criteria for mov-
ing on to baseline for mands for information
were met. All three participants met mastery
criteria on the preassessment (data not shown
but available upon request); thus, they were
able to complete all behaviors in the
contingency-specific statement used in the
study. Brian and Daisy met mastery in baseline
and did not require training. Haley’s respond-
ing was between 60%–80% in baseline and,
therefore, training was conducted for 10 sessions
until mastery was met.
Mands for Information
We evaluated mands for information across
baseline, training, and posttraining sessions.
Session procedures were identical across all con-
ditions with the exception that mands for infor-
mation were never prompted during baseline
and posttraining sessions. Sessions generally
lasted 5–10 min, were implemented during
breaks between academic activities and class-
room routines, and consisted of 10 trials with
random interspersal of five EOP and five EOA
trials. For Haley and Brian, access to preferred
items and activities used during sessions was
restricted for approximately 10 min prior to
and following sessions. For Daisy, access to pre-
ferred items and activities used during sessions
was restricted outside of sessions due to a his-
tory of rapid satiation of these highest preferred
items.
We used procedures described in the preas-
sessment to evoke a mand for an item or activ-
ity prior to each trial. As in the preassessment,
mands for items or activities resulted in either
immediate reinforcement (about one third of
the time) or initiation of a trial. During EOP
trials, the therapist responded to mands for
items or activities with a denial statement
(e.g., “not right now”). During EOA trials, the
therapist responded to mands with a denial
statement and a contingency-specifying state-
ment (e.g., “not right now, after you wash your
hands”). Therapists withheld the denied item
or activity during all trials, until they completed
one of five preselected behavior requirements
(e.g., washing hands) and engaged in an appro-
priate initiation. The only way participants
could access the denied reinforcer during EOP
trials was by either “guessing” the correct
behavior requirement, which was unlikely, or
emitting the mand for information when,
which resulted in delivery of the contingency-
specifying statement. We presumed that with-
holding contingency-specifying statements at
the beginning of the EOP trial and presenting
them only following mands for information
would evoke and reinforce mands for informa-
tion, respectively. By contrast, we presumed
that presenting the contingency-specifying
 MANDS FOR INFORMATION USING ‘WHEN’
statement at the start of each EOA trial would
render the EO for mands for information
absent. Denial statements included the phrases
not right now, you can have that later, and that’s
unavailable. Contingency-specifying statements
included those assessed in the preassessment.
Denial and contingency-specifying statements
were randomly assigned within conditions prior
to the start of the session. That is, all five
behavior requirements were targeted during
both conditions, but the order in which they
were targeted varied. The order of EOA and
EOP trials was randomly determined prior to
the session.
Following each denial or contingency-
specifying statement, the therapist started a
timer and allowed 5 s for the participant to
emit a mand for information or to initiate the
behavior requirement. The therapist reinforced
all mands for information by presenting the
contingency-specifying statement (e.g., “after
you pick up your toys”). Inappropriate initia-
tions including vocal mands for the preferred
item and physical attempts to access the item
were ignored. It should be noted, however, that
none of the participants engaged in physical
attempts. If they had, the physical attempt
would have been blocked. All appropriate
initiations (i.e., initiations following the com-
pletion of the behavior requirement) were rein-
forced with the manded item. Trials ended
either immediately after an appropriate initia-
tion was emitted or following 10 s after the
behavior requirement was completed, which-
ever came first. That is, if the participant com-
pleted the behavior requirement, but did not
emit an appropriate initiation by manding
again for the item within 10 s, the trial was ter-
minated. Therapists then presented two to
three mastered tasks and reinforced compliance
with praise and a break, rather than the tangi-
ble reinforcer, to contrive the relevant EO for
the next trial. If the participant performed the
correct targeted behavior on EOP trials without
manding for information, appropriate
7
initiations (i.e. initiations following task com-
pletion) were reinforced. Specifically, if a partic-
ipant “guessed” the behavioral requirement and
completed it and then subsequently manded
again for the item, it was delivered. We with-
held prompts to complete the target behavior
requirement and emit appropriate initiations
across all phases to allow for an assessment of
whether the relevant EO was in place. In other
words, lack of completing the behavior require-
ment or subsequent initiation for the reinforcer
may indicate that the EO relevant to the termi-
nal reinforcer was absent; prompts were with-
held to ensure that when these behaviors did
occur, they were under control of the relevant
EO, rather than discriminative control of sti-
muli correlated with prompts.
Training sessions were identical to baseline
and posttraining sessions except that we used a
constant time delay to teach the participants to
mand for information during EOP trials. With a
0- to 1-s delay, immediately following the denial
statement on EOP trials, the therapist delivered a
textual (Haley) or echoic (Brian and Daisy)
prompt to emit the mand for information. Once
the participant emitted a correct mand for infor-
mation across 100% of EOP trials with the 0- to
1-s delay for one session, the prompt delay was
extended to 3 s to allow the opportunity for an
independent response. If an independent correct
response was not emitted within 3 s of the EO
presentation, a prompt was provided. No pro-
grammed consequences were in place for inap-
propriate initiations or errors that occurred prior
to this prompt. Prompts were removed and post-
training was conducted when participants
emitted a correct mand for information across
100% of EOP trials and no more than 20% of
EOA trials for two consecutive sessions at the 3-s
prompt delay.
RESULTS
During baseline, none of the participants
emitted mands for information during EOP
8 ROBIN K. LANDA et al.

trials (Figure 1). Throughout the study, all par- was given (Figure 2). By contrast, during EOP
ticipants continued to complete behavior trials, when the contingency-specifying infor-
requirements during 80%-100% of EOA trials mation was withheld, all of the participants
in which the contingency-specifying statement were unable to consistently perform the correct

Baseline Training Posttraining

100

80

60

40

20
Haley
Mands for Information - When (% of Trials)

0
100

80

60 EOP (I)
EOP (P)
EOA
40

20
Brian

0
100

80

60

40

20
Daisy

0
5 10 15 20
Sessions

Figure 1. Percentage of trials with independent mands for information (I) under EOA and EOP conditions and
prompted mands for information (P) under EOP condition only, during baseline, training, and posttraining.
 MANDS FOR INFORMATION USING ‘WHEN’ 9

Baseline Training Posttraining

100

80

60

40

20
Haley

0
Correct Behavior Performed (% of Trials)

100

80

60
EOP
EOA
40

20
Brian

0
100

80

60

40

20
Daisy

0
5 10 15 20
Sessions

Figure 2. Percentage of trials in which participants correctly completed the behavior requirement to access reinfor-
cers under EOA and EOP conditions during baseline, training, and posttraining.

behavior requirement (Figure 2) and displayed participant who completed tasks during the
persistent mands for the denied item, as indi- EOP trials, resulting in a few correct “guesses.”
cated by high levels of inappropriate reinforcer Daisy’s completion of tasks when denied access
initiations (Figure 3). Daisy was the only to preferred items was presumably due to a
10 ROBIN K. LANDA et al.

Baseline Training Posttraining

100

80

60

40

20
Haley

0
100
Percentage of Initiations

80

60
Appropriate
40 Inappropriate

20
Brian

0
100

80

60

40

20
Daisy

0
5 10 15 20
Sessions

Figure 3. Percentage of appropriate and inappropriate initiations for reinforcers under EOP conditions during base-
line, training, and posttraining.

history of redirection to similar tasks following being told which task to complete and subse-
denials. Given that the behavior requirements quently emitted an appropriate initiation for
were randomized before each session, she occa- the denied item. This is reflected in the few ses-
sionally completed the correct task without sions with low correct responding to the
 MANDS FOR INFORMATION USING ‘WHEN’
behavior requirements (Figure 2). Data on
initiations in EOA trials are not displayed, as
there was no change in initiations in the EOA
condition following introduction of training.
Participants never (Haley) or rarely (Daisy and
Brian) emitted inappropriate initiations and
almost always emitted appropriate initiations
during EOA trials across all phases (data availa-
ble from the corresponding author).
During mands for information training, all
participants began responding to prompted
trials to emit the mand when? during EOP
trials (Figure 1). Prompts were delayed to 3 s
following the first session, for all participants.
Haley met mastery criteria in 10 sessions, Brian
met mastery in 3 sessions, and Daisy met mas-
tery in 11 sessions. All participants emitted the
mand for information when? under EOP trials
exclusively, indicating the mand was under
control of the relevant establishing operation.
Acquisition of the mand for information
resulted in an increase in the correct behavior
performed and an increase in the proportion of
appropriate initiations relative to inappropriate
initiations during EOP trials for all participants.
Similar results were observed in the absence of
all prompts during the posttraining condition.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study extend prior
research by demonstrating successful methods
for teaching the mand for information when?
under EOP and EOA conditions and add to
the growing body of literature reporting func-
tional use of information acquired via newly
taught mands. Following training, the mand
when? occurred exclusively when information
was withheld (EOP). These results may be
interpreted in two ways. The first is that the
therapist’s verbal response during EOP condi-
tions served as a discriminative stimulus,
whereas the therapist’s verbal response during
EOA conditions served as a neutral stimulus,
resulting in acquisition of a discriminated
11
response. The second is that absence of
contingency-specifying information during
EOP conditions served as an establishing opera-
tion resulting in acquisition of a mand, whereas
the presence of contingency-specifying informa-
tion during EOA conditions served as an abol-
ishing operation.
Several factors increase confidence in the
interpretation of EO control. First, all trials
began following a participant’s mand for a
highly preferred item, increasing the likelihood
that an EO relevant to the terminal reinforcer
was present at the beginning of each trial. Sec-
ond, all participants demonstrated a general
degree of consistency in completion of the
behavior requirement and subsequent mand for
the item, across both EOP and EOA condi-
tions, increasing confidence that the EO rele-
vant to the terminal reinforcer was present
throughout each trial. Third, there were no
programmed differential consequences for ask-
ing “when?” across either condition (i.e., asking
“when?” always resulted in delivery of
contingency-specifying information). However,
only Daisy emitted the when response during
EOA conditions and contacted this
contingency.
Participants’ use of information was demon-
strated through completion of the behavior
requirement and a high proportion of appropri-
ate initiations (i.e., discriminated mands for
items), highlighting the potential benefits of
teaching the mand when? In baseline, partici-
pants were able to complete alternative activ-
ities prior to attempting to access reinforcers
when provided with denials and specific
instructions (i.e., during EOA conditions in
which adults presented statements such as “not
right now, after you …”), but not when adults
simply denied reinforcers with no additional
direction (i.e., during EOP conditions in which
adults presented statements such as “not right
now”). It should be noted that Haley and Brian
emitted continuous inappropriate initiations for
reinforcers following denials and never
12 ROBIN K. LANDA et al.
attempted to engage in any of the targeted
behavior requirements. However, acquisition of
the mand when? resulted in a decrease in inap-
propriate initiations and an increase in correct
completion of behavior requirements.
Participants’ caregivers reported that inap-
propriate initiations were problematic and typi-
cally preceded more severe forms of problem
behavior (e.g., crying, screaming, flopping,
aggression, or property destruction). We
observed high levels of inappropriate initiations
exclusively in the EOP condition during base-
line, indicating that they were evoked by rein-
forcer denials in the absence of additional
directives. Reinforcement delays or denials are
often unavoidable outside of highly controlled
settings and, in the absence of treatment, may
result in the emergence of inappropriate behav-
ior, including high-rate mands (e.g., Hanley,
Iwata, & Thompson, 2001). Treatments that
have been successful in increasing tolerance to
denials or delays often require specific adult
responses, such as delivery of instructions and
differential reinforcement of compliance
(e.g., contingency-based delay training; Hanley,
Jin, Vanselow, & Hanratty, 2014), provision of
alternative reinforcers (e.g., Austin & Tiger,
2015), or arrangement of discriminative stimuli
(e.g., multiple schedules with contrived stimuli;
Betz, Fisher, Roane, Mintz, & Owen, 2013)
prior to or following denial cues. However, it
seems reasonable to expect that caregivers who
are busy, are distracted, or have not received
specialized training with these interventions
may simply deny reinforcers without providing
additional instructions, alternative reinforcers,
or other discriminative stimuli. Teaching chil-
dren to mand for information regarding what
to do following such reinforcer denials may
have relevance to the prevention and treatment
of problem behavior, given that teaching chil-
dren to mand when? remediated inappropriate
initiations for all participants in the current
study. However, we neither evaluated the func-
tional reinforcer for inappropriate initiations
nor conducted a functional analysis of more
severe problem behavior. Future research to
identify the conditions for teaching this skill is
thus warranted, especially with children who
engage in more severe problem behavior follow-
ing denials, as well as those with fewer prereq-
uisite skills than those included in the current
study. The finding that acquisition of the mand
when? resulted in a decrease in repetitive mands
and an increase in appropriate alternative
behavior may have relevance to other contexts
in which reinforcers are not immediately availa-
ble contingent on appropriate behaviors. For
instance, caregivers may have a variety of expec-
tations for what children should do following
reinforcer denials. Children may be expected to
complete alternative tasks (e.g., “after you do
your homework”) or engage in an alternative
activity without disruptive behavior for a speci-
fied amount of time (e.g., “in 5 minutes”),
until an event elapses (e.g., “when it stops rain-
ing outside”), or for an unpredictable duration
(e.g., “I’m not sure when that will be availa-
ble”). Therefore, researchers should also iden-
tify the utility of teaching children to both
respond to and recruit information regarding a
variety of caregiver expectations following rein-
forcer denials. Of particular interest may be the
duration of the delay specified in the informa-
tion given by the caregiver.
Some limitations to the current study war-
rant additional research. First, we investigated
only the use of contingency-specifying informa-
tion. To increase the functionality and mainte-
nance of the mand when? future research
should investigate methods for teaching chil-
dren to respond appropriately to a variety of
types of information related to reinforcer availa-
bility. For example, asking, “When is dinner?”
or, “When can I go to the park?” does not nec-
essarily lead to access to or shorten the wait
time to those events. Understanding the multi-
ple reinforcers responsible for use of the mand
when? and the common expectations during
delays or denials is important to developing
 MANDS FOR INFORMATION USING ‘WHEN’
effective methods of teaching this skill and pro-
moting maintenance and generalization of its
use. Second, participants were taught to emit
the mand when? following a therapist’s denial
response. Because initiating trials following a
participant’s initial mand for an item may
increase assurance of EO control, conducting
initial teaching in this context might be desira-
ble. However, there are other occasions in
which it is more socially appropriate to emit
the mand when? in the context of naturally
occurring stimuli that signal the unavailability
of reinforcers, such as when another child is
playing with a preferred item or when care-
givers are engaged in busy activities and not
necessarily when a denial is given. Additional
research evaluating methods for teaching mands
for when under such conditions seems war-
ranted. Other researchers may also consider
evaluating similar procedures for teaching other
mands for information such as why?
REFERENCES
Austin, J. E., & Tiger, J. H. (2015). Providing alternative
reinforcers to facilitate tolerance to delayed reinforce-
ment following functional communication training.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 663–668.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.215
Betz, A. M., Fisher, W. W., Roane, H. S.,
Mintz, J. C., & Owen, T. M. (2013). A component
analysis of schedule thinning during functional com-
munication training. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 46, 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.23
Betz, A. M., Higbee, T. S., & Pollard, J. S. (2010). Pro-
moting generalization of mands for information used
by young children with autism. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 4, 501–508. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rasd.2009.11.007
Endicott, K., & Higbee, T. S. (2007). Contriving moti-
vating 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
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Thompson, R. H. (2001).
Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment
with functional communication training. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 17–38. https://doi.org/
10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17
13
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., &
Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful
improvements in problem behavior of children with
autism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 16–36. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106
Howlett, M. A., Sidener, T. M., Progar, P. R., &
Sidener, D. W. (2011). Manipulation of motivating
operations and the 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
Ingvarsson, E. T., & Hollobaugh, T. (2010). Acquisition
of intraverbal behavior: Teaching children with
autism to mand for answers to questions. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 1–17. https://doi.org/
10.1901/jaba.2010.43-1
Lechago, S. A., Carr, J. E., Grow, L. L., Love, J. R., &
Almason, S. M. (2010). Mands for information gen-
eralize across establishing operations. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 381–395. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-381
Lechago, S. A., Howell, A., Caccavale, M. N., & Peterson,
C. W. (2013). Teaching “how?” mand-for-information
frames to children with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 46, 781–791. doi: 10.1002/jaba.71
Schuster, J. W., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Guiltinan, S.
(1988). The effectiveness of a constant time-delay
procedure to teach chained responses to adolescents
with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 21, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1988.21-169
Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., & Valentino, A. L.
(2014). Mands for information using “how” under
EO-absent and EO-present conditions. The Analysis
of Verbal Behavior, 30, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40616-013-0002-7
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, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.101
Shillingsburg, M. A., & Valentino, A. L. (2011). Teach-
ing a child with autism to mand for information
using “how.” The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27,
179–184.
Shillingsburg, M. A., Valentino, A. L., Bowen, C. N.,
Bradley, D., & Zavatkay, D. (2011). Teaching chil-
dren with autism to request information. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 670–679. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.004
Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assess-
ment and placement program: The VB-MAPP. Con-
cord, CA: AVB Press.
Sundberg, M. L., Loeb, M., Hale, L., & Eigenheer, P.
(2002). Contriving establishing operations to teach
14 ROBIN K. LANDA et al.

mands for information. The Analysis of Verbal Behav- Received January 26, 2016
ior, 18, 15–29. Final acceptance July 7, 2016
Williams, G., Donley, C. R., & Keller, J. W. (2000). Action Editor, Alison Betz
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.