The current study examined the outcome of presenting multiple secondary targets in learning trials for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. We compared conditions in which (a) a secondary target was presented in the antecedent and consequence of trials, (b) two secondary targets were presented in the consequence of trials, (c) one secondary target was presented in the consequence of each trial, and (d) no additional targets were presented trials. The participants acquired the majority of secondary targets. Presenting one or multiple secondary targets per trial, regardless of the location of these secondary targets, increased the efficiency of instruction in comparison to a condition with no secondary target.