The Defective Mand: Troubleshooting Mand Training

Many problems can go wrong in the process of training mands. While the historical tendency of many educators has been to suggest that such problems are due to variables within the individual learner (‘he’s not trying” “he just doesn’t like anything”, etc.), the perspective promoted through this training and in the field of behavior analysis suggests looking for causes of problems in the relationship between the student and the environment.

The following list of possible barriers to student’s acquiring effective mand repertoires is derived from the work of Dr. Mark Sundberg as provided in the Verbal Behavior-Milestones Assessment for Program and Placement Planning (2007). Here are some of the barriers listed by Dr. Sundberg:

• Mand training is not part of the child’s early language training history
• The target response form is too difficult for the child
• When a child has no or limited vocal behavior, sign language or PECS have not been tried.
• The response requirement is too high and weakens the relevant MO
• There is no current MO in effect for the targeted item (e.g. satiation, weak to begin with)
• The response is prompt bound by physical, echoic, imitative, or verbal stimuli
• A nonverbal stimulus acquires control of the response and blocks MO control.
• A verbal stimulus acquires control of the response and blocks MO control.
• Motivation (MO) does not control the response form.
• The child has weak MOs in general
• Free or cheap access to reinforcers without manding
• Self-stimulation or obsessive behaviors compete with other MOs.
• A small group of mands has a strong history of reinforcement (e.g. candy, juice, skittles)
• There is a limited availability of established imitative or echoic responses.
• No variation in captured and contrived MOs.
• Negative behavior functions as mand
• Inappropriate mands become too strong and are intermittently reinforced.
• The curriculum is poorly sequenced.
• Fading out the object/non-verbal stimulus too soon.
• A single response topography functions as the mand (e.g. more, please, that)
• Can’t establish different response topographies.
• Scrolling gets reinforced.
• Not enough mand trials are provided each day.
• Poor audience control.
• Mands only required and reinforced in a specific setting.
• Generalization training is not provided.
• Verbal information does not function as reinforcement for the child.
• Manding does not come under the control of natural contingencies.
• A history of punishment for attempts at manding.
• Problem behaviors serve as mands
• MO does not control response form
• No MO for targeted item
• Scrolling (multiple mand forms emitted when a single, specific mand form would be more effective)
• A single topography functions as mands for multiple reinforcers (i.e. child can say “more” therefore never uses specific mands for items)
• Self stimulatory behaviors compete with other MOs or have a lower response requirement