Relating relational networks: An initial experimental analysis
Same, opposite, bigger, and smaller cues can weld two equivalence networks into one.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Gomes and colleagues taught adults two separate stimulus equivalence networks.
Then they asked the adults to link the networks using same, opposite, bigger, and smaller cues.
They used mastery-based probes to check if the new cross-network relations really stuck.
What they found
Most adults quickly learned to relate items across the two networks.
After training, the cues alone controlled responding, showing true antecedent control.
How this fits with other research
Johnson et al. (2014) first showed adults can merge separate equivalence classes, but they used reinforcers as the glue. Gomes swaps reinforcers for relational cues—same, opposite, bigger, smaller—so the merger now runs on language rules, not prizes.
Whiting et al. (2015) used the same bigger/smaller cues to shift roulette bets. Gomes moves the cue power from gambling choices to network linking, proving the cues work across very different tasks.
Alonso‐Álvarez et al. (2018) argued same/opposite performances are just equivalence plus exclusion, no new frames needed. Gomes ignores the debate and simply uses the cues as a practical tool to connect classes, showing the argument doesn’t slow down teaching.
Why it matters
You can now teach learners to tie together two already-known sets of items by using simple relational words. In practice, after a client masters fruit names and color names separately, a few same/opposite or bigger/smaller drills could let you test mixed questions like “If apple is same as red, is banana same as yellow?” without direct teaching. Start small: pick two mastered sets, add a couple of relational trials, and probe for emergent links next session.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick two mastered picture sets, run two same/opposite trials, and probe a new cross-set relation.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Studying relating of relational networks is a complex and challenging task. The main objective of the present study was to demonstrate relating within and across relational networks based on same/opposite and bigger/smaller contextual cues and establish antecedent control. After nonarbitrary pretraining of the contextual cues, two nonsense stimulus classes were established based on comparative relations. Participants were trained to select stimuli from an array of options based on a symbolic rule that established a relation between two stimuli: one of Network 1 and one of Network 2. Training involved relating Network 1 to Network 2, and testing assessed relating Network 2 to Network 1. Seven of eight participants reached the mastery criterion in training and responded accordingly in test. In a final stage, reinforcing and punishing consequences were varied systematically in the presence of two novel stimuli and antecedent control was observed for all 7 participants. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 but using contextual cues taken from natural language, and Experiment 3 sought to understand the effects of pretraining relational responding using natural language. The mastery criteria were reached by four of seven participants in Experiment 2 and by all eight participants in Experiment 3. Future studies could develop and refine the methods employed here in analyzing the relating of relational networks, thus allowing for an increasingly sophisticated behavior-analytic account of human language and cognition.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jeab.854