Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior.
Feedback across many examples makes derived relational responding generalize to totally new stimuli.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran four small lab tests with neurotypical adults. They used matching-to-sample tasks with instant right/wind feedback.
Each test asked: if we reinforce correct picks, will people later pick correctly with brand-new pictures they have never seen?
What they found
Yes. Once feedback trained the pattern, participants kept choosing correctly even when every picture changed.
The skill jumped to new sets without extra teaching, a sign of generalized operant learning.
How this fits with other research
Dixon et al. (2021) later got the same jump in kids with autism using PEAK-E lessons. The 2000 lab result now works in a clinic.
Lalli et al. (1995) showed the effect first but only with same/more/less cues. O et al. added many new sets to prove the rule.
Cullinan et al. (2001) next asked which cue unlocks the skill. They found teaching "same" and "different" words first makes later equivalence faster.
Why it matters
You can treat derived relational responding like any other operant: reinforce it across many examples and it generalizes. Start with simple same/different drills, give quick feedback, then swap in new pictures or words. The learner’s mind does the rest, building untaught connections that power language, math, and social skills.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run five same/different trials with new pictures right after mastered ones and reinforce every correct pick.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The major aim of the present study was to demonstrate that derived relational responding may be viewed as a form of generalized operant behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 subjects were divided into two conditions (2 in each condition). Using a two-comparison matching-to-sample procedure, all subjects were trained and tested for the formation of two combinatorially entailed relations. Subjects were trained and tested across multiple stimulus sets. Each set was composed of novel stimuli. Both Conditions 1 and 2 involved explicit performance-contingent feedback presented at the end of each block of test trials (i.e., delayed feedback). In Condition 1, feedback was accurate (consistent with the experimenter-designated relations) following exposure to the initial stimulus sets. When subjects' responding reached a predefined mastery criterion, the feedback then switched to inaccurate (not consistent with the experimenter-designated relations) until responding once again reached a predefined criterion. Condition 2 was similar to Condition 1, except that exposure to the initial stimulus sets was followed by inaccurate feedback and once the criterion was reached feedback switched to accurate. Once relational responding emerged and stabilized, response patterns on novel stimulus sets were controlled by the feedback delivered for previous stimulus sets. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, except that during Conditions 3 and 4 four comparison stimuli were employed during training and testing. Experiment 3 was similar to Condition 1 of Experiment 1, except that after the mastery criterion was reached for class-consistent responding, feedback alternated from accurate to inaccurate across each successive stimulus set. Experiment 4 involved two types of feedback, one type following tests for mutual entailment and the other type following tests for combinatorial entailment. Results from this experiment demonstrated that mutual and combinatorial entailment may be controlled independently by accurate and inaccurate feedback. Overall, the data support the suggestion, made by relational frame theory, that derived relational responding is a form of generalized operant behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.74-207