Abstract
We sought to evaluate a set of procedures based on Relational Frame Theory in teaching children with disabilities to reason analogically using relations between the contextual cues “same,” “opposite,” and “different.” Two children were first taught to respond to the relational cues using common pictures and were subsequently trained through an exemplar to correctly respond to analogies presented in an analogy matrix, based on the prior established relations. Two other children were exclusively trained to respond to analogies in the matrix without prior relational training. The children that received relational and analogy training could correctly respond analogically and the skill transferred to untrained analogies. Mastery was not observed in the control participants.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Belisle, J., Dixon, M. R., Stanley, C., 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, 965–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.324.
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.
Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). Equivalence-equivalence as a model of analogy: Further analyses. The Psychological Record, 53, 349–371.
Dixon, M. R. (2014a). The PEAK relational training system: Direct training module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon, M. R. (2014b). The PEAK relational training system: Generalization module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon, M. R. (2015). The PEAK relational training system: Equivalence module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon, M. R. (2016). The PEAK relational training system: Transformation module. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon, M. R. (2017). Challenging Behavior Index. Shawnee Scientific Press.
Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., McKeel, A., Whiting, S., Speelman, R., Daar, J. H., & Rowsey, K. (in press). An internal and critical review of the PEAK Relational Training System for children with autism and related intellectual disabilities: 2014–2017. The Behavior Analyst.
Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., Rowsey, K. E., Speelman, R., Stanley, C., & Kime, D. (2016c). Evaluating emergent naming relations through representational drawing in individuals with developmental disabilities using the PEAK-E curriculum. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000055.
Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., Stanley, C., Speelman, R., Rowsey, K. E., & Daar, J. H. (2016d). Establishing derived categorical responding in children with disabilities using the PEAK-E curriculum. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.355.
Dixon, M. R., McCord, B. E., & Belisle, J. (2018). A demonstration of higher-order response class development in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.456.
Goswami, U. (1992). Analogical reasoning in children. . Psychology Press.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of language and cognition. . Plenum Press.
Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-207.
Rehfeldt, R. A., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Derived relational responding: Applications for learning with autism and other developmental disabilities. . New Harbinger Publications Inc.
Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Relational frame theory and analogical reasoning: Empirical investigations. Revista Internacional de Psicología y Terapia Psicológica, 4, 241–262.
Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2002). A functional-analytic model of analogy: A relational frame analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.78-375.
Vendetti, M. S., Matlen, B. J., Richland, L. E., & Bunge, S. A. (2015). Analogical reasoning in the classroom: Insights from cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12080.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional human subjects committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the present study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Belisle, J., Paliliunas, D. & Dixon, M.R. Emergent Entailed Analogical Reasoning of “Same,” “Different,” and “Opposite” in Children with Disabilities. J Behav Educ 32, 64–75 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09438-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09438-1
Keywords
- Analogy
- RFT
- PEAK
- Disabilities