A Systematic Review of Mands for Information

Thumbnail Image

Files

A Systematic Review of Mands for Information FINAL (1).pdf (648.83 KB)

Links to Files

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bin.1893

Permanent Link

https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1893
 http://hdl.handle.net/11603/25179

Collections

UMBC Psychology Department
UMBC Faculty Collection
UMBC Student Collection

Author/Creator

Author/Creator ORCID

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6638-5212
 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0535-1526

Date

2022-06-05

Type of Work

journal articles
postprints
Text

Department

Program

Citation of Original Publication

Cengher, M., Bowman, M. D., Shawler, L. A., & Ceribo-Singh, M. S. M. (2022). A systematic review of mands for information. Behavioral Interventions, 1– 23. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1893

Rights

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Cengher, M., Bowman, M. D., Shawler, L. A., & Ceribo-Singh, M. S. M. (2022). A systematic review of mands for information. Behavioral Interventions, 1– 23. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1893, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1893. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited.
Access to this item will begin on date 6/5/24

Subjects

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of studies on mands for information. We used a combination of keywords to search for articles through PsycINFO® and then conducted reference and citation searches for all articles that met our inclusion criteria. In total, we identified 32 studies with 35 experiments. The most commonly investigated autoclitic frames were where and who, and the least investigated were why and how. Over half of the studies included an evocative scenario that served as a test condition, but did not include a control condition; however, there was an overall increasing trend toward including both conditions starting in 2007. The authors of the published studies reported that participants received information, which led to other reinforcers. We make recommendations for clinical practice, as well as discuss directions for future research.