A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than.
Teaching adults to respond to "same," "more," and "less" can spontaneously give them the ability to label their own correct choices.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults first learned to pick the correct picture when they heard made-up words like "same," "more," or "less.
Next they practiced matching their own choice to a color cue that meant "you picked the right one.
Finally, with no new teaching, the words alone let them label their own correct choices—showing a brand-new self-discrimination skill.
What they found
People who got the relational training could now judge their own correct answers just by hearing "same," "more," or "less.
Control adults who skipped the training never showed the skill, proving the words created the new behavior.
How this fits with other research
Perez et al. (2017) later showed these same cues can jump to new pictures through equivalence classes—an extension that widens what you can teach with one set of cues.
Chadwick et al. (2000) offered the bigger picture, framing this kind of learning as a generalized operant you can strengthen with feedback—giving you a roadmap to train it step-by-step.
Dixon et al. (2021) moved the logic into clinical work, using PEAK-E to generate derived relations in kids with autism—evidence that the lab model works in everyday therapy.
Why it matters
You now have proof that teaching just three relational words can create brand-new self-monitoring skills. Try adding brief "same/more/less" drills before tasks where learners must check their own work; the cues may transfer and reduce your need to prompt every correct response.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run five match-to-sample trials with "same/more/less" cues, then ask the learner to pick their "correct" card without feedback—see if the cue alone evokes accurate self-selection.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Experiment 1, 2 experimental subjects were given pretraining of nonarbitrary relations that brought their responses under the control of four contextual stimuli; same, opposite, more than, and less than. One control subject was not exposed to this pretraining. The 2 pretrained subjects and the 3rd nonpretrained subject then received training in six arbitrary relations, the following four relations being the most critical: same/A1-B1, same/A1-C1, less than/A1-B2, more than/A1-C2. All 3 subjects were then tested for seven derived relations, the following three relations being the most important: same/B1-C1, more than/B1-C2, less than/B1-B2. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the derived relations. One of the stimuli (B1) from the relational network and two novel stimuli (X1 and X2) were then used to train three different self-discrimination responses on three complex schedules of reinforcement. That is, all 3 subjects were trained to pick X1 if they had not emitted a response, to pick B1 if they had emitted one response only, and to pick X2 if they had emitted two responses only. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the predicted transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the relations of sameness, more than, and less than (i.e., no response, pick B2; one response only, pick C1; and two responses only, pick C2). In Experiment 2, 2 new subjects were employed, and the arbitrary relational training and testing phases were modified to control for a procedural artifact that may have contributed to the results of the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. The pattern of results support the utility of a relational frames approach to understanding derived stimulus relations.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1995 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.64-163