Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the Development of Relational Framing in Young Children

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Relational frame theory (RFT) sees operant acquisition of various patterns of relational framing (frames) as key to linguistic and cognitive development, and it has explored the emergence of a range of psychological phenomena (e.g., analogy, perspective-taking) in these terms. One potentially important advance for RFT research is to obtain more detailed information on the normative development of relational framing in childhood. This was one of the aims of the present study, which sought to measure relational responding of various types and at various levels of complexity in young children across a range of ages. A second aim of the study was to focus in particular on analogy, or the relating of relations, as one particularly important pattern of relational responding. The present study examined a range of frames including coordination, comparison, opposition, temporality, and hierarchy at a number of different levels of complexity (nonarbitrary relating, nonarbitrary relating of relations, arbitrarily applicable relating, and arbitrarily applicable relating of relations) in young children ranging in age from 3 to 7. Performance overall as well as under various subheadings was correlated with both age and intellectual ability. Outcomes and their implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Adaptation of the procedure used in Barnes-Holmes et al. (2004b).

  2. Regarding participant behavior in low scoring trials: All cohorts continued to respond to questions, stay on task, and provide answers throughout assessment. In cases where the data show that a cohort was responding below chance levels, in general participants were responding with “I don’t know” or incorrect responses, especially as the questions became more difficult.

References

  • Alexander, P.A., Willson, V. L., White, C. S., Fuqua, J. D., Clark, G. D., Wilson, A. F., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1989). Development of analogical reasoning in 4- and 5-year-old children. Cognitive Development, 4(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(89)90005-1.

  • Barnes, D., Hegarty, N., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: A relational framing model of complex human functioning. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392916.

  • Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Luciano, C., & McEnteggart, C. (2017). From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6(4), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.08.001.

  • Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McEnteggart, C. (2020). Updating RFT (more field than frame) and its implications for process-based therapy. The Psychological Record. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00372-3.

  • Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., Dymond, S., & O’Hora, D. (2001). Multiple stimulus relations and the transformation of stimulus functions. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 51–71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum

  • Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with opposite as generalized operant behavior in young children. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, 559–586

  • Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Strand, P., & Friman, P. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with more-than and less-than as a generalized operant behavior in young children. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, 531–558

  • Belisle, J., Dixon, M. R., Stanley, C. R., Munoz, B., & Daar, J. H. (2016). Teaching foundational perspective-taking skills to children with autism using the PEAK-T curriculum: Single-reversal “I-You” deictic frames. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(4), 965–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.324.

  • Berens, N. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Arbitrarily applicable comparative relations: Experimental evidence for a relational operant. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.7-06.

  • Bod, R. (2009). From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 752–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01031.x.

  • Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2002). Matching functionally same relations: Implications for equivalence-equivalence as a model for analogical reasoning. The Psychological Record, 52, 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395435.

  • Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). Equivalence-equivalence as a model of analogy: Further analyses. The Psychological Record, 53, 349–371

  • Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2004). Matching derived functionally-same stimulus relations: Equivalence-equivalence and classical analogies. The Psychological Record, 54, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395473.

  • Cassidy, S., Roche, B., Colbert, D., Stewart, I., & Grey, I. M. (2016). A relational frame skills training intervention to increase general intelligence and scholastic aptitude. Learning & Individual Differences, 47, 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.03.001.

  • Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & Hayes, S. C. (2011). A relational frame training intervention to raise intelligence quotients: A pilot study. The Psychological Record, 61(2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395755.

  • Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2014). Language helps children succeed on a classic analogy task. Cognitive Science, 38(2), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12099.

  • Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., McKeel, A., Whiting, S., Speelman, R., Daar, J. H., & Rowsey, K. (2017). An internal and critical review of the PEAK relational training system for children with autism and related intellectual disabilities: 2014–2017. The Behavior Analyst, 40(2), 493–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0119-4.

  • Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., & Stanley, C. R. (2018). Derived relational responding and intelligence: Assessing the relationship between the PEAK-E pre-assessment and IQ with individuals with autism and related disabilities. The Psychological Record, 68(4), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0284-1.

  • Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., Whiting, S. W., & Rowsey, K. E. (2014). Normative sample of the PEAK relational training system: Direct training module and subsequent comparisons to individuals with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(11), 1597–1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.07.020.

  • Dougher, J. M., Hamilton, D. A., Fink, B. C., & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05.

  • Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1995.64-163.

  • Dymond, S., May, R. J., Munnelly, A., & Hoon, A. E. (2010). Evaluating the evidence base for relational frame theory: A citation analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 33(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392206.

  • Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (eds.). (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Context Press/New Harbinger.

  • Fagot, J., & Maugard, A. (2013). Analogical reasoning in baboons (papio papio): Flexible reencoding of the source relation depending on the target relation. Learning & Behavior, 41, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-012-0101-7.

  • Fienup, D. M., & Brodsky, J. (2020). Equivalence-based instruction: Designing instruction using stimulus equivalence. In M. Fryling, R. A. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language & cognition (pp. 157–173). Context Press/New Harbinger

  • Fryling, M., Rehfeldt, R. A., Tarbox, J., & Hayes, L. J. (eds.). (2020). Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition. Context Press/New Harbinger

  • Garred, M., & Gilmore, L. (2009). To WPPSI or to Binet, that is the question: A comparison of the WPPSI-III and SB5 with typically developing preschoolers. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 19(2), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.19.2.104.

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(83)80009-3.

  • Gentner, D., & Christie, S. (2010). Mutual bootstrapping between language and analogical processing. Language & Cognition, 2(2), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2010.011.

  • Gil, E., Luciano, C., Ruiz, F. J., & Valdivia-Salas, S. (2014). A further experimental step in the analysis of hierarchical responding. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 14(2), 137–153

  • Gillan, D. J., Preman, D., & Woodruff, G. (1981). Reasoning in the chimpanzee: I. Analogical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.7.1.1.

  • Gore, N. J., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Murphy, G. (2010). The relationship between intellectual functioning and relational perspective-taking. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 10(1), 1–17

  • Gorham, M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Berens, N. (2009). Derived comparative and transitive relations in young children with and without autism. The Psychological Record, 59, 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395660.

  • Goswami, U. (1989). Relational complexity and the development of analogical reasoning. Cognitive Development, 4(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(89)90008-7.

  • Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical reasoning and causal relations. Cognition, 35(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90037-K.

  • Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1990). Higher-order structure and relational reasoning: Contrasting analogical and thematic relations. Cognition, 36(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90057-Q.

  • Hayes, J., & Stewart, I. (2016). Comparing the effects of derived relational training and computer coding on intellectual potential in school-age children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12114.

  • Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (eds.). (2001a). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Kluwer Academic/Plenum

  • Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001b). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21–49). Kluwer Academic/Plenum

  • Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Relational frame theory: The basic account. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 129–178). Wiley Blackwell

  • Hunter, I. M. L. (1957). The solving of three term series problems. British Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1957.tb00627.x.

  • Lapiana, W. P. (2004). Merit and diversity: The origins of the Law School Admissions Test. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 48, 955–990

  • Levinson, P. J., & Carpenter, R. L. (1974). An analysis of analogical reasoning in children. Child Development, 45(3), 857–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127862.

  • Lipkens, R., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239

  • Luciano, C., Rodriguez, M., Manas, I., Ruiz, F., Berens, N. M., & Valdivia-Salas, S. (2009). Acquiring the earliest relational operants: Coordination, distinction, opposition, comparison, and hierarchy. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities (pp. 149–172). Context Press/New Harbinger

  • Lunzer, E. A. (1965). Problems of formal reasoning in test situations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 30(2), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165774.

  • McCormack, T., & Hoerl, C. (2017). The development of temporal concepts: Learning to locate events in time. Timing & Time Perception, 5(3–4), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-00002094.

  • McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). A relational frame account of the development of complex cognitive phenomena: Perspective taking, false belief understanding, and deception. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, 303–323

  • Moran, L., Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2014). Relational ability and language performance in children with autism spectrum disorders and typically developing children: A further test of the TARPA protocol. The Psychological Record, 64, 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0032-0.

  • Morsanyi, K., & Holyoak, K. J. (2010). Analogical reasoning ability in autistic and typically developing children. Developmental Science, 13(4), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00915.x.

  • Mulhern, T., Stewart, I., & McElwee, J. (2017). Investigating relational framing of categorization in young children. The Psychological Record, 67, 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0255-y.

  • Mulhern, T., Stewart, I., & McElwee, J. (2018). Facilitating relational framing of classification in young children. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 8, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.04.001.

  • O’Hora, D., Pelaez, M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). Derived relational responding and performance on verbal subtests of the WAIS-III. The Psychological Record, 55, 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395504.

  • O’Hora, D., Pelaez, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Raw, G., Robinson, K., & Chaudhary, T. (2008). Temporal relations and intelligence: correlating relational performance with performance on the WAIS-III. The Psychological Record, 58, 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395638.

  • O’Toole, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Three chronometric indices of relational responding as predictors of performance on a brief intelligence test: The importance of relational flexibility. The Psychological Record, 59, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395652.

  • Partington, J. W. (2008). The assessment of basic language and learning skills-revised (the ABLLS-R). Behavior Analysts

  • Piaget, J., Montangero, J., & Billeter, J. B. (2001). The formation of analogies (R. L. Campbell, Trans.). In J. Piaget, Studies in reflecting abstraction (pp. 139–152). Psychology Press. (Original work published 1977)

  • Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2012). Children and situation models of multiple events. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025526.

  • Rehfeldt, R. A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (eds.). (2009). Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities. Context Press/New Harbinger

  • Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales (5th ed.). Riverside Publishing

  • Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05.

  • Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Prentice Hall

  • Smirnova, A., Zorina, Z., Obozova, T., & Wasserman, E. (2015). Crows spontaneously exhibit analogical reasoning. Current Biology, 25, 256–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.063.

  • Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56(3), 519–555. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.56-519.

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 84(4), 353–378

  • Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Bundy, D. A. (2001). The predictive value of IQ. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 1–41

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Nigro, G. (1980). Developmental patterns in the solution of verbal analogies. Child Development, 51(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129586.

  • Stewart, I. (2016). The fruits of a functional approach for psychological science. International Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12184.

  • Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2004). A functional-analytic model of analogy using the relational evaluation procedure. The Psychological Record, 54(4), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395491.

  • Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2013). Language generativity, response generalization, and derived relational responding. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29, 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393131.

  • Stewart, I., McLoughlin, S., Mulhern, T., Ming, S., & Kirsten, E. B. (2020). Assessing and teaching complex relational operants: Analogy and hierarchy. In M. Fryling, R. A. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, M. Fryling, & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition: Core concepts & principles for practitioners. Context Press/New Harbinger

  • Stewart, I., & Roche, B. (2013). Relational frame theory: An overview. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application (pp. 51–71). Context Press/New Harbinger

  • Sundberg, M. L. (2008). VB-MAPP: Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program. AVB Press

  • Vitale, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Campbell, C. (2008). Facilitating responding in accordance with the relational frame of comparison: Systematic empirical analyses. The Psychological Record, 58, 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395624.

  • Zettle, R. D., Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Biglan, A. (eds.). (2016). The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science. Wiley Blackwell

Download references

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable

Funding

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Elle B. Kirsten & Ian Stewart

Authors
  1. Elle B. Kirsten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elle B. Kirsten.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the NUI Galway Research Ethics Committee. All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A1

Relational Assessment Stage 1: Nonarbitrary Relations

figure a

Appendix A2

Relational Assessment Stage 2: Nonarbitrary Analogical Relations

figure b

Appendix A3

Relational Assessment Stage 3: Arbitrary Relations

figure c

Appendix A4

Relational Assessment Stage 4: Arbitrary Analogical Relations

figure d

Appendix 2

Table 4 Chance level responding across stages and substages
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kirsten, E.B., Stewart, I. Assessing the Development of Relational Framing in Young Children. Psychol Rec 72, 221–246 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00457-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00457-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation