7/22/2013

1

Ruth Anne Rehfeldt, PhD, BCBA-D

Clarissa S. Barnes, PhD., BCBA

Andrew Blowers, & Kristen Whiteford

Southern Illinois University

Contriving Transitive Conditioned

Motivating Operations to Establish

Manding Skills Establishing Derived Manding in Children

with Severe Developmental Disabilities

Using a Touch Screen Computer

Simon Dymond1, Katharine Still1, Robert Whelan2

1 Swansea University

2 University College Dublin

Objectives • Explore the history of the term Motivating Operation in

Behavior Analysis

• Distinguish between contriving and capturing MOs for mand instruction

• Define and provide examples of contriving transitive conditioned motivating operations

• Discuss research-based strategies for teaching mands under the control of transitive conditioned motivating operations

• Discuss how the stimulus equivalence program can be used in conjunction with contriving CMOs-T

• Describe procedures for establishing complex mands

Rehfeldt & Barnes-Holmes, Eds. (2009)

Brief Introduction to Motivating

Operations and their Relevance

for Language Instruction

On the Concept of Establishing Operation • Older term than people realize!

– Keller & Schoenfeld (1950): a variable that momentarily establishes the reinforcing effectiveness of some other object or event (i.e., water deprivation momentarily establishes water as an effective reinforcer; changes in temperature above or below the optimal level establish changes in the opposite direction as effective reinforcement (Michael, 1988)

– EO: (Michael, 1988): Two defining features: 1) monetarily increases the effectiveness of a reinforcer; and 2) evokes responding that has been reinforced by the specific reinforcer in the past.

– Michael (1993) called these the reinforcer establishing and the evocative effects of EOs.

7/22/2013

2

UEOs vs. CEOs • Some stimuli have their reinforcer-establishing effects

without any learning (evolution has made us to be reinforceable by food, water; sexual rft; or pain reduction) (UEO; Michael, 1988; 1993)

• Many reinforcer-establishing effects for a variety of stimuli are learned (CEO; Michael, 1988) (i.e., a rat lever presses to remove the presentation of a light which has been paired with electric shock – the offset of the light reinforces lever pressing because it is a warning stimulus, a CEO, for the painful stimulus)

• CEOs are not the same as discriminative stimuli: Sds signal the differential availability of reinforcement if a specific response occurs and not in the absence of the specific response.

• EOs, on the other hand, make other events reinforcers and increase the frequency of responding that produces the reinforcer.

Types of CEOs: • CEO: Variables that alter the reinforcing efficacy of other events, but only

because of the person’s learning history.

• Alter the momentary frequency of the type of behavior that has been

reinforced or punished by those other events.

• 3 types: All stimuli that were “motivationally neutral” prior to their relation

to another EO or to a form of reinforcement or punishment (Michael,

1993).

– Surrogate CEO: Neutral event may be paired with a UEO or another

CEO, as a result, the neutral event acquires the motivational

characteristics of the UEO.

– Reflexive CEO: Neutral event precedes some form of worsening.

Responding to terminate that stimulus results in worsening not

occurring, and response frequency momentarily increases (threat or

promise CEO; Michael, 1988; 1993)

– Transitive CEO: Correlation of a stimulus with the correlation

between another stimulus and a form of unconditioned reinforcement.

Transitive CEO: • Michael, 1993: S1 is correlated with the correlation

between S2 and some form of improvement or worsening, the presence of S1 establishes the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of S2 and evokes or suppresses the behavior that has been followed by that consequence.

• Many forms of conditioned reinforcement or punishment are contingent upon other stimulus conditions (context).

• Example (Michael, 1993): A workman needs a slotted screwdriver to disassemble equipment when he sees a slotted screw. He requests the screwdriver from his assistant. The slotted screw is a CEO for the request, as they have been correlated with successful disassembly and have value for that reason.

On the Term Motivating Operation

• Laraway et al. (2003): Some elements of the EO definition are problematic for ABA

• Many motivating variables decrease the effectiveness of consequences (i.e., NCR; medications)

• Michael (1993): Term “abolishing” to describe such effects was inconvenient.

• The term “motivating operation” was introduced to capture both the establishing and abolishing functions of certain variables.

On the Term Motivating Operation, cont.

• Motivating variables may affect multiple behaviors – i.e., sleep deprivation reduced the value of praise as a reinforcer and increased the value of edibles (Horner et al., 1997; as cited in Laraway et al., 2003).

• Motivating variables increase the effectiveness of punishers as well.

• Evocative effect = behavior altering effect

• EO = MO!

Importance of MOs for Language

Instruction

• Mand (Skinner, 1957): A verbal operant under the control of MO, where the consequence is that specified in the mand (i.e., a request for juice when thirsty results in the delivery of juice).

• Typically developing children and adults do not need professional support for a mand repertoire because the mand directly benefits the speaker (Michael, 1988).

7/22/2013

3

Why is Mand Instruction

Sometimes Neglected?

• Practitioners have to CAPTURE MOs (keep their eyes out for MO’s)

• Practitioners have to CONTRIVE MOs (artificially create a motivating operation to increase the value of some stimulus as a reinforcer)

• Not understood that it is the only verbal operant that directly benefits the speaker or learner (Michael, 1988)

• Neglected in standardized language assessments (Michael, 1988)

“Momentary” aspect of the MO • Sundberg (1993): The Application of Establishing

Operations:

• To use an MO as an IV, behavior analyst must either capture or contrive the reinforcing effectiveness of an event (T-CMO can be both).

• Capturing: Capitalize on the MO as it occurs naturally:

• Contriving: present a stimulus that increases the value of another stimulus – Making coffee and withholding the hot water: Coffee increases

the value of hot water and evokes behavior that is followed by that form of reinforcement; now teach a mand for “coffee” (Sundberg, 1993, p. 212)

– Child sees fire truck outside window, which increases the value of an open door and evokes behavior that has resulted in doors opening in the past. Caregiver conducts a mand trial for the word “open” (Sundberg, 1993; p. 212)

Transitive CMOs: Critical for

Establishment of Mand Repertoire • Capturing:

• 1. Child shows interest in movie. Teach the mand “movie” when he is eyeing the DVD and banging the movie case and reinforce with remote.

• 2. Child tries to reach toy on shelf. Teach mand “please help” and reinforce with adult reaching the item on the shelf.

• Contriving:

• 1. Withhold sock as a child is dressing in the morning. Teach a mand for “sock” and reinforce with the delivery of the sock. (Incidental teaching)

• 2. Withhold crayons that child needs to color a picture. Teach mand for “crayon” and reinforce with the delivery of the crayon.

Additional Ideas for Contriving

Transitive MOs:

• 1. Provide learner with incorrect change when using a vending machine, and teach mand for correct coins (Langthorne et al.)

• 2. Withhold access to any everyday item needed for individual to accomplish some daily living task (toothbrushing, eating, etc.)

• 3. Withhold access to any everyday item needed for individual to accomplish some scholastic living task (calculator, pencil, etc.)

• One stimulus change establishes the reinforcing value of a second stimulus change

Contriving Transitive Conditioned

Motivating Operations:

Interrupted Chain Procedure

Hunt, Morgan, Alwell, & Sailor

(1986)

Using an Interrupted Behavior Chain

Strategy to Tech Generalized

Communication Responses

7/22/2013

4

Purpose:

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of the

interrupted chain procedure to teach

communicative responses

• To demonstrate the generalization of these

responses when common stimuli are

programmed

– Untaught communicative responses in new

behavioral chains

Participants:

Behavior Chains

Target Responses:

Monica: point to target picture in a 3 card array (target, partial drawing, and blank)

Everett: point to “want” + the picture of item in a 4 picture array

Nate: hold communication book with the word “want” on it

Pretests and Posttests:

Receptive label (listener responding)

Show me _______

Interrupted Chain Instruction:

• Correct Responses: praise

+ cue to continue sequence

• Incorrect Response:

• Experimenter modeled correct response and used manual guidance. No rft for prompted response; trial represented.

– Correct response = praise and cue to continue the sequence

– Incorrect = removal of items and termination of instruction

What do you want? Test Outcomes

• First, would participants request the items for

the sequence in the absence of reinforcement?

• Second, would they request NOVEL items

needed for NOVEL sequences?

7/22/2013

5

• Results:

Results

• Pretest/posttest

– Receptive label (listener responding)

Hall & Sundberg (1987)

Teaching Mands by Manipulating

Conditioned Establishing Operations

Purpose:

• Teach mands (manual sign) by manipulating conditioned MOs

• Assess generalization of mands taught

• Assess the emergence of untaught mands after teaching participants to tact the stimuli

– i.e., would first teaching participants to tact the items needed to complete the chain be more effective than directly teaching the mand (using imitative and tact prompts and fading those prompts) for the item alone?

Participants:

– Two students with severe intellectual disability and

deafness

• 16-17 years-old

– S1 = male

– S2 = female

• Low rates of manding

– No manding for missing items

• Extensive tact repertoires

– Response modality – sign

The chains:

• Behavior chain instruction (most-least prompting)

1. Making instant soup (S1 & S2)

2. Opening a can of fruit (S1 & S2)

3. Wiping up water spilled on a table (S1)

4. Operating a vending machine (S1)

5. Making instant coffee (S2)

6. Coloring a large picture (S2)

1 2 3

7/22/2013

6

Instruction: – MAND INSTRUCTION:

– Tact prompt

• Show the missing item + “what’s that?”

– Incorrect tact = imitative sign prompt

– Correct = missing item + “what do you want”

– Imitative prompt for mand

• “Do this” + model

– Incorrect tact = physical prompt

– Correct = missing item + “what do you want”

WHAT IF TACTS WERE TAUGHT FIRST?

WOULD THAT BE MORE EFFECTIVE?

Results & Conclusions:

• Manding only occurred reliably after directly

teaching the mands first (not tacts first)

What does this mean for you?

• Participants may need lengthy

instructional history before one

operant skill will emerge following

instruction in another area

• Interrupted chain procedure presents

limitless ideas for contriving MO’s

and readily establishing mands

Albert, Carbone, Murray,

Hagerty, Sweeney-Kerwin (2012)

Increasing the Mand Repertoire of

Children with Autism Through the Use

of an Interrupted Chain Procedure

Purpose

• Replicate Hull & Sundberg (1987)

• Extend literature on mand instruction using

interrupted chains

• Test for emergence of untaught tacts following

mand instruction

Method

• Participants – all emitted unprompted mands

– Victor (dx: autism)

• 5 years-old

• Limited tact/intraverbal repertoire

– Nathaniel (dx: autism)

• 8 years-old

• Limited tact/intraverbal repertoire

– Carina (dx: PDD-NOS)

• 5 years-old

• Well developed tact/intraverbal repertoire

Method

• Pre-training

– Taught to

complete

behavior chains

• Physical

prompts w/

prompt fading

7/22/2013

7

Method

• Mand Instruction:

– Echoic prompt

Listen to music

I want the CD player

Method, cont.

• Probes for untaught mand responses

– Identical to baseline except one of the following

components was changed:

• Novel stimuli

• Novel instructor

• Novel setting

• Tact probes

What’s this?

• All 3 showed

emergent tacts;

• 2 participants

performed with 100%

accuracy with novel

chains

Further Ideas for Interrupted Chains: • Any self-care task

• Any art or craft project

• Any simple class-room or house clean-up task

Teaching: use graduated time delay procedure

-Use physical prompts with PECS; modeled prompts with sign; and gradually increase delay before which prompt is delivered. Eventually participant will anticipate correct response during the delay.

-Use vocal prompts for vocal mands with same procedure.

Will Teaching Mands Under

Transitive CMO Control Be More

Effective with PECS or Sign?

7/22/2013

8

Participant:

– Louis:

Louie

Age 51

Diagnoses

Severe MR, intermittent

explosive disorder,

blindness in left eye

ICAP Social

/communicative

age equivalent

1 year 8 months

Communication

method Gestures (nonvocal)

Method

• Teaching mands under transitive MO control – Baseline

– Generalization probes • Different setting and communicative partner

• Teaching mands under transitive CEO control

– Instruction

Method

PECS (phase 3) Sign

Make pudding

Make tea

Stimulus Equivalence & Contriving

Transitive Conditioned Motivating

Operations

Sidman (1994) Account of

Stimulus Equivalence:

Picture names

dictated TO

subject

Pictures

Picture names

spoken BY

subject

Picture printed

names

AD

B

C

AB

CBB

C

CD

BD

AC

Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence Relations and

Behavior: A Research Story. Cambridge, MA:

7/22/2013

9

Train A-B (match dictated names to pictures); Train A-C (match dictated names to text) When mastered, test B-A (picture naming); C-A (text reading), B-C and C-B matching (reading comprehension) – under EXT

A Behavior Analytic Account of Reading:

• 2 Components of Reading (De Souza, De Rose, Domeniconi, 2009)

– Textual Behavior (verbal responses under precise ctrl. of print or Braille stimuli)

– Comprehension (see Snow, 2007)

• Both components may be established in the absence of direct instruction

• Means by which stimuli come to be symbolic for, or refer to, one another

Another Picture: Rehfeldt, R.A., & Root, S. L. (2005). Establishing derived

requesting skills in adults with severe developmental disabilities.

JABA, 38, 101-105.

• Will a history of reinforced conditional discriminations (names-pictures; names-text) establish derived manding/requesting skills in adults with severe communication deficits?

• If individuals are taught to request desired items via picture exchange, and then are taught to relate those pictures to dictated names and dictated names to text, will they then use text to request desired items? (Functionality of text exchange for adults)

• Will other verbal skills emerge from this history?

“puzzle”

puzzle

Used to mand for actual puzzle

Method • Participants: three adults with severe IDD &

little or no functional communication (IQs ≤ 30)

• Request training procedure: Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) (Frost & Bondy, 1994), Phases 1-3.

• Selection of desired items: multiple stimulus preference assessment w/out replacement

• Stimuli: desired items; dictated names (“A” stimuli), corresponding pictures (“B” stimuli), corresponding printed words (“C” stimuli)

• Design: multiple probe design (Horner & Baer, 1978) across participants

7/22/2013

10

Participant

Sam Kenny Carl

Trace Pizza Candy

Tape Sandwich Mint

Puzzle Markers Trace

Preferred Items:

(Efforts made to ensure similarity in word length)

Procedure • Preliminary Testing

• Test Probes:

– Derived relations: B-A – names pictures; C-A – reads words; B-C/C-B

matches words & pictures;

– Derived Mand (uses “C” stimuli – printed words – to request desired

items).

• PECS Training (Phases 1-3)

• Conditional Discrimination Training

– A-B (matches dictated name to correct picture)

– A-C (matches dictated name to correct text)

• Test Probes

• Training & testing conducted in 9 trial blocks; mastery criterion = 8/9

correct per block; probes presented after ea/ display of mastery

.33

0

.33

.22

0

Sam

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

.22

.89

1

.89

Names

PicturesReads

Words

Matches

Pictures

to Words

Matches

Words to

PicturesDerived

Request

Pretest.67

0

.22

.11

0

Kenny

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

11

.89

1

.89 .89

Names

PicturesReads

Words

Matches

Pictures

to Words Matches

Words to

PicturesDerived

Request

Pretest

0 0

.22

.11

0

Carl

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Posttest

.89

1

.67

Names

Pictures

Reads

Words

Matches

Pictues

to Words

Matches

Words to

Pictures

Derived

Request

Pro

port

ion

of C

orre

ct R

espo

nses

Probes

First Pre-Test Probes

Final Post-Test Probes

Rosales, R., & Rehfeldt, R.A. (2007). Contriving transitive conditioned

establishing operations to establish derived manding skills in adults with

severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40,

105-121.

• Will a history of reinforced conditional discrimination learning result in derived “pure” mands (under transitive CEO/MO control) for items needed to complete a chained task?

• Will other verbal skills emerge?

• Participants: 3 individuals with severe IDD; IQ ≤ 36

• PECS phases 1-3 (functionality of text exchange for adults)

Chained Tasks:

“Playing Music” “Making Kool-Aid”

• Pick up CD player

• Open face of CD player

• Select CD

• Open CD case

• Insert CD into CD player

• Close CD player

• Pick up headphones

• Plug headphones into CD player

• Push “play” button on CD player.

• Pick up pitcher

• Pick up Kool-Aid® packet

• Open packet completely

• Empty packet into pitcher

• Pick up water jug

• Open water jug

• Pour water into pitcher at least ½ full

• Place jug back on table

• Select spoon from table

• Put spoon in pitcher of water

• Stir until powder completely dissolves

• Remove spoon from pitcher

• Pick up lid

• Place lid tightly on pitcher

• Pick up cup

• Pour Kool-Aid® into cup at least ½ full.

see also LeBlanc & Dillon, 2009 for capturing and contriving MOs

Stimuli A1A2A3

“HEADPHONES”

Stimuli B1B2B3

“SPOON”

Stimuli C1C2C3

“CUP”

Stimuli A1B1C1

Stimuli A2B2C2

Stimuli A3B3C3

7/22/2013

11

Preference Assessment : RAISD and MSWO

P.E.C.S Training & Chained Task

Mand Training within Chained Task

Conditional Discrimination Training : A-B

A-C Training

Mixed A-B and A-C

Post-Test Probes

Pre-Test Probes

Method

B-A C-A B-C C-B Derived Mands

Lucy

0 0

1

.67

.78

.67

.89.89

.22

.89

.78

.89.89

.56

.45

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Maintenance

Tony

0

1 1 1

.23

.33

.45

.56

.89.89 .89

.78.78

.89

.56

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Vocal

Requesting

Vocal

Requesting

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

orr

ect

Resp

onse

s p

er

Tri

al

Blo

ck

Establishing Derived Manding in Children

with Severe Developmental Disabilities

Using a Touch Screen Computer

Simon Dymond1, Katharine Still1, Robert Whelan2

1 Swansea University

2 University College Dublin

Probe for derived manding and C-B and B-C derived relations.

Training relations A-C and A-B.

“Train”

A: Spoken Word

‘Train’

C: Written Text B: Picture

Trained

Untrained

C: Written Text

‘Train’

Manding using picture-exchange Manding using text-exchange

7/22/2013

12

Conditional relations training: name-picture (A-B) and name-text (A-C) and derived

relations testing picture-text (B-C) and text-picture (C-B).

Name-picture (A-B) |show me…| Name-text (A-C) |show me…|

Picture-text (B-C) |match| Text-picture (C-B) |match|

Contriving Transitive Conditioned

Motivating Operations:

Teaching Mands for Information

(Question-Asking)

Why teach mands for information?

• Asking questions is functional for the speaker

– “where is daddy?”

– “what’s that?”

– “where is my teddy?”

• Is critical for social interaction and conversations

• Common deficit in children with autism

• Skinner defined a question as a mand which specifies

verbal action

• See Sundberg et al. (2002)

More on Mands for Information

• How is it that they are they under the control

of transitive conditioned motivating

operations?

• Access to the item specified in the mand (i.e.,

the person for a “who” question and the item

for a “where” question) increases the value of

the information supplied by another person.

• Must grant consideration to prerequisite skills

Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, &

Eigenheer (2002)

Contriving Establishing Operations to

Teach Mands for Information

Purpose

• To teach “where” and “who” mands by

contriving establishing operations and

providing only verbal information as a

consequence

• (In other words, teach children to ask questions

beginning with “Where” and “Who” where the

answer supplied by the experimenter serves as

the reinforcer

7/22/2013

13

Method:

Experiment 1

• Participants

– Two boys with autism – Kevin

» 5 years-old

– Billy

» 6 years-old

• Substantial mand, tact, intraverbal repertoire, and

listener repertoires

– Did not emit “where” mands (did not ask questions beginning

with “Where is ________”

Method:

Experiment 1

• Baseline

– “Get your Legos”

• Access to item

– Item returned and distractor activity (e.g., reading a book)

Method:

Experiment 1

• Pretraining

– “Go get your ____, it’s in the ____” + point prompt

• Instruction:

– Identical to BL with feedback

• Told “Go Get Your _______”

• Taught to mand, “Where is _____?” using echoic prompts (i.e., “say ___”

• Reinforcer = being told where item was (and child gaining access)

The Legos are in the green

box Get your Legos

Where are Legos?

Results:

Experiment 1

• “Where” mands

– Kevin

Results: Experiment 1

• “Where” mands

– Billy

Experiment 2 of Sundberg et al. (2002)

• Used participants with similar verbal skills as

in Experiment 1, who did not ask “where” OR

“who” questions.

• This time, participants would be taught to ask

both “where” and “who” questions in one

conversational exchange with the experimenter

7/22/2013

14

Method:

Experiment 2

• Instruction – Child told, “Go get ____”

– Child taught to say “where is _____” using echoic prompts and feedback in the form of information

– To reinforce the above question, the child was told, “I gave it to a teacher.”

– Child was then taught to say, “Who?”

– Incorrect responses resulted in repeated trials and echoic propmts

– Answer to questions (and access to items) reinforced correct mands.

I gave it to a teacher.

Get your Buzz Lightyear

Where is Buzz? Who has it?

The teacher with the red shirt

Results : Experiment 2

• “Where” +

“who” mands

– Kevin

,

More on teaching mands for

information: • Endicott & Higbee (2007) replicated the Sundberg

procedure

• Preschoolers with autism who manded for many items; one of whom had 75 tacts

• Included brief stimulus

• preference assessment

• (Carr, Nicolson, & Higbee, 2000): – Preference selection conducted only

once vs. 3 x

– All items were toys that participants

reliably tacted.

Endicott & Higbee (2007) Procedure:

• 1st ensured that child could go to three

designated locations when instructed (told,

“Go to the (toy box, shelf, or backpack)”

• Taught this skill if necessary.

• Items in 3 designated locations

• Baseline: “Get (item). Mand resulted in

instructor stating the location.

Endicott & Higbee (2007) Procedure:

• Instruction:

– Same as baseline, but:

– If participant did not mand “Where (item)” within 30 s, verbally prompted, “Say ‘Where (item)?”

– Participant then repeated “where (item)?” and instructor stated the location of the missing item (i.e., “it’s (in your backpack).”

– Allowed to interact with item for 30 s.

– 5 trials for highly preferred and least preferred; evaluated generalization in home setting.

7/22/2013

15

• Fig. 1. Results of Experiment 1 (“Where”) for Stewart (upper panel), Braden (middle panel), and Gavin (lower panel). Data are presented as the parentage of correct mands using “where”. HP, high-preference item; LP, low-preference item. The arrow in the treatment phase for Gavin indicates the session where the experimenter.

Experiment 2 Instruction:

• Procedure

1. Identical to intervention condition in experiment 1

except…

2. After the participant asked “Where -?” the

experimenter said “I gave it to somebody.”

3. Echoic prompt “Who has it?” was delivered next if

the participant did not emit the echoic within 30 s

4. Incorrect response: were scored if the response did

not occur within 30 s of the experimenter’s response

“I gave it to somebody.”

Fig 2. Results of Experiment 2 (“Who”) for Stewart (upper panel), Braden (middle panel), and Dillon (lower panel). Data are presented as the percentage of correct mands using “who”. HP, high-preference item; low=preference item.

Conclusions for YOU for teaching:

• Mands for Information can be reliably established using simple prompting procedures and a structured environment

• Doesn’t seem to matter whether the item specified in the mand (i.e., “Where is ____”) is highly preferred or not.

• The information itself is the reinforcer.

Use Script Fading to Establish the

Mands for Information

• Howlett, Sidener, & Progar (2011):

• During instruction, audiotaped script was played (Where’s _____”) out of view of participant

• Scripts faded beginning with full script (“Where’s ____”); then partial script (“Where’s”), then no script.

• Fading began after child responded correctly within 5 s of the full script across 2 sessions.

• Script repeated and experimenter answered question if child did not repeat the script so child could find and play with toy.

7/22/2013

16

New Directions in

Teaching Complex Mands:

• Manding to Terminate Aversive conditions

• Superstitious/Magical Mands

• Metonymical Extensions

• Targeted in PEAK curriculum (Dixon, 2013)

PEAK: Manding to Terminate

Aversive Conditions

• Caregiver establishes a series of 3-5 aversive events

and sets the occasion for the child to mand for

termination of such an event

Caregiver asks if child would like a cookie

Child Says “yes”

Caregiver begins to eat cookie herself

Antecedent Behavior Consequence

Establishing Operation - Aversive

Child says “I want that

one. It’s mine”

Caregiver delivers cookie

to child

Caregiver begins to eat cookie herself

Superstitious/Magical Mands

• Extension of the mand whereby utterances are emitted which are wished to have an impact on the event, but realistically do not. Shaped by the verbal community as a convention of cultural practices

• Rolling a dice…..

– “mama needs a new pair of shoes”

• Broken cell phone

– “come on and work!”

• Cloudy sky

– “It better not rain today”

• A star

– “Star light star bright, first star I see tonight….”

PEAK: Superstitious Mands - 11P

Give child a broken

calculator

Child says “come on and work”

Social reinforcement “Yea, come on and work”

Child says “Bounce

Ball!”

Give child flat ball and say “bounce

ball”

No reinforcement

(test)

Trained Skill Tested Skill

PEAK: Metonymical Extensions

What do you want?

What else can you call it?

(does not give plane)

Airplane

Bird “That’s right!”

(gives plane)

Conclusions

• Questions or Comments?

7/22/2013

17

Ruth Anne Rehfeldt, PhD, BCBA-D

Clarissa S. Barnes, PhD., BCBA

Andrew Blowers, & Kristen Whiteford

Southern Illinois University

Contriving Transitive Conditioned

Motivating Operations to Establish

Manding Skills