Acquiring the Earliest Relational Operants: Coordination, Distinction, Opposition, Comparison, and Hierarchy

Authors: Carmen Luciano, Miguel Rodríguez, Israel Mañas, Francisco Ruiz (University of Almería, Spain); Nicholas M. Berens (Center for Advanced Learning, Reno); Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas (University of Albany, New York)

Year: 2009

Source: Chapter 8 in Derived Relational Responding: Applications for Learners with Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities

Type: THEORETICAL

Central thesis and objectives

This chapter presents a theoretical and practical development regarding the training of the most basic and generalized relational operants, focusing on five fundamental relational frames: coordination, distinction, opposition, comparison, and hierarchy. The authors argue that these verbal operants constitute the roots of meaningful knowledge and language, and that their early mastery is essential for cognitive and linguistic development. The central objective is to provide practical and theoretically-grounded guidelines for establishing these relational frames in populations with developmental delay, particularly autism and other developmental disabilities. The authors contend that explicit training in derived stimulus relations has not been sufficiently incorporated into conventional behavioral programs, despite evidence that doing so significantly enhances generalization and acquisition of complex linguistic skills.

The authors take Relational Frame Theory (RFT; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes & Roche, 2001) as their starting point to argue that analysis of how the earliest learners acquire derived relational responding capacity is fundamental to understanding and improving behavioral intervention programs. Thus, the chapter combines elements of RFT theory with practical training recommendations that can be implemented in educational and clinical settings.

Theoretical framework

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) provides the conceptual foundation for this work. From the RFT perspective, relational behavior is defined as responding to one event in terms of another event, and this capacity is not simply complex, but is controlled by formal or arbitrary properties of stimuli, not their physical properties. For example, a monkey can be trained to respond to "the taller of two stimuli" based on height differences, but this does not imply verbal or relational responding in the RFT sense. For a response to be relational in the RFT sense, it must be controlled by arbitrary contextual cues that specify the relation between stimuli.

The authors establish that there are multiple types of relational frames, each with specific properties of mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and transformation of stimulus functions. The frame of coordination, for example, involves responding with the meaning that something "is the same as" or "is equivalent to" something else. This frame is bidirectional (if A is the same as B, then B is the same as A) and generates automatic derivations: if A is the same as B and B is the same as C, then A is the same as C. Through the learner's experience with multiple exemplars during early natural language interactions, the relational history results in the emergence of a generalized type of bidirectional response that can be applied to any new stimulus under the control of appropriate contextual cues.

The authors explain that in addition to coordination, there are other relational frames that include opposition ("is the opposite of"), distinction ("is different from"), comparison ("is more/less than"), and hierarchy ("contains", "is a member of"). Each of these frames has distinctive characteristics in terms of their properties of entailment and transformation of stimulus functions. Coordination is described as the most basic frame that infants learn in natural language, followed by opposition, comparison and distinction, with hierarchy typically being the most complex.

Argument development

The chapter begins with a critical review of existing behavioral programs for populations with autism and developmental disabilities, such as Lovaas' (1977) Discrete Trial Training (DTT) and Greer's (2002) Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling (CABAS). The authors note that although these programs have been widely implemented and have documented success, they present significant limitations: they do not explicitly emphasize training in derived stimulus relations or in generalized relational operants. As a result, learners typically repeat the same names of objects, body parts, and people over and over without learning new naming relations or using those names in conversation or generalized contexts.

The authors present a central argument: weaknesses in generalized relational responding may in fact be fundamental in autism and developmental disabilities. They contend that training in arbitrary stimulus relations (that do not share formal properties) is likely to be at the root of basic repertoires of generalized responding. From this perspective, programs that do not explicitly incorporate training in derived stimulus relations will face limitations in the development of generalized verbal behaviors and complex problem-solving behaviors.

The chapter then provides general recommendations for training relational operants, based on RFT. These include: (1) knowledge of standard procedures for simple and conditional discriminative training, since the establishment of relational frames is fundamentally a discriminative learning process; (2) use of appropriate discrimination procedures (MTS, observational, respondent-type); (3) multiple exemplar training (MET) with trial variation to promote relational complexity; (4) use of consistent relational cues (words or phrases that specify the arbitrary relation); (5) generalized social reinforcement; and (6) generalization across daily life interactions.

Next, the chapter develops in detail the training of each relational frame. For coordination, it describes systematic training using the MTS format with non-arbitrary stimuli, followed by testing with arbitrary stimuli. The chapter provides a concrete example: training a learner to coordinate two identical stimuli under the relational cue "the same as," then testing with new identical pairs to verify that the relation has been derived. It describes how functions transferred through coordination mean that if A is taught as "dangerous," then B and C (coordinated with A) automatically also acquire aversive functions.

For opposition, the chapter explains that this relation must be taught after coordination because the combinatorially entailed relations within opposition are coordinated. It provides practical examples: if a learner learns that A "is the opposite of" B and B "is the opposite of" C, the learner should derive that A and C "are the same." Training opposition begins with non-arbitrary stimuli that differ on key dimensions (for example, temperature: hot potatoes vs. cold potatoes), followed by transition to arbitrary stimuli with appropriate contextual cues.

For distinction, the chapter notes that this relation involves responding to arbitrary differences between stimuli, which is particularly challenging because there are no formal properties to rely upon. Training begins with stimuli that share multiple dimensions but differ in others (for example, plastic cups identical in size and shape but different in color), and progresses toward completely arbitrary stimuli with no non-arbitrary counterparts.

For comparison, the chapter describes how to establish responses to quantitative or qualitative relations (for example, "more/less than"). It provides an example from Barnes-Holmes et al. (2004) using coins: training that a one-dollar coin (A) is "more than" a fifty-cent coin (B), and that B is "more than" a twenty-five-cent coin (C), resulting in transitive derivations. The chapter emphasizes that interlocked comparisons offer powerful opportunities for combinatorial function transformations.

For hierarchy, which the authors describe as the most complex frame, they explain that it involves responding with contextual cues such as "contains," "is an attribute of," or "belongs to." Hierarchy requires that learners have strong capacities in other relational frames. The chapter provides the example of a family tree: if taught that "Grandmother contains Mother" and "Mother contains Brother," the learner should be able to derive more complex relationships about how Grandmother, Mother and Brother are organized in the family structure. Hierarchy training typically proceeds top-down, although it is critical that learners capture the bidirectionality of these relations.

The chapter emphasizes that across each type of relational frame, the process involves: (1) establishing initial relational control using MET with non-arbitrary stimuli; (2) testing and deriving initially trained relations; (3) promoting fluency and flexibility through variation in stimuli, contexts, functions, training/testing formats; (4) transition to arbitrary control when appropriate; and (5) ensuring that expected function transformations occur. The chapter stresses that although these training sequences have not been explicitly tested experimentally in many cases, they are informed by extensive empirical evidence and by RFT predictions that have been empirically confirmed.

Implications

The authors note that the implications of this work are significant for both research and clinical practice. In the research context, they argue that more experimental work is needed to test these specific training sequences and to determine the optimal order of introduction of these relational frames. Additionally, they suggest that research should explore how individual variations in learning history affect the acquisition of these relational operants.

For clinical and educational practice, the authors emphasize that explicitly integrating training in relational operants into behavioral intervention programs could significantly improve outcomes. Specifically, they suggest that educators and clinicians should use these guidelines to develop programs that not only teach specific facts or skills, but that establish learners' underlying capacity to respond relationally in a generalized manner. The authors believe this would enable learners to learn more efficiently, transfer what they have learned to new situations, and eventually develop the sophisticated capacities for abstract thinking and reasoning that characterize typical cognitive and linguistic development.

Significance and contribution

This chapter makes an important contribution to the field by synthesizing relational frame theory with applied behavioral practice, providing detailed and concrete guidelines for training the most fundamental relational operants. Unlike previous theoretical presentations of RFT, this chapter is specifically dedicated to how to operationalize these theoretical concepts in the context of populations with autism and developmental disabilities. The key contribution is filling a critical gap between theory and practice: recognizing that conventional behavioral programs may not be explicitly accessing the mechanisms of relational generalization that underlie typical linguistic and cognitive development. By providing these theory-based training sequences, the chapter offers a route to improve the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and expand learners' repertoires beyond specifically trained responses toward generalized linguistic and cognitive skills.