Using Relational Training to Improve Performance During Acceptance and Commitment Training Sessions

Three autistic children first completed eight short relational-training programs. The drills taught them to link words like “same,” “opposite,” and “before-after” in quick yes/no rounds.

Next each child joined Acceptance and Commitment Training sessions. The team watched whether the earlier drills cut problem behavior during ACT. They used a multiple-baseline design across kids.

Only one child showed a clear drop in hitting, yelling, and leaving the table during ACT. The other two stayed about the same.

A second score, overall engagement, did rise a little for all three. Taken together, the gains were small to moderate and uneven.

Chastain et al. (2025) extend this idea. They taught one autistic boy perspective-taking frames like I-You and Here-There. The child mastered every relation, showing the same training style can build more advanced skills.

Pahnke et al. (2014) look like a contradiction at first. They ran a six-week ACT group for autistic teens without any prep and still cut stress and boosted prosocial behavior. The key difference is age and format: teens in a classroom could follow ACT rules right away, while the younger kids in Gilsenan et al. needed the extra relational warm-up.

Belisle et al. (2020) line up on method. They used brief trials to teach bigger-smaller and faster-sorter links and saw new relations pop out without direct teaching. Gilsenan et al. used the same trial style, just aimed at ACT readiness instead of abstract math.

If you run ACT with younger autistic learners, a five-minute relational warm-up may help one child stay calm, but it is not a sure fix. Keep measuring behavior session-by-session. Pair the prep with other supports like visuals or breaks until you see steady gains.