Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.

888-83

The Psychological Record, 2007, 57, 23-47

ASSESSING RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN

PERSPECTIVE-TAKING IN CHILDREN WITH
HIGH-FUNCTIONING AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER

RUTH ANNE REHFELDT, JEFFREY E. DILLEN,

MEGAN M. ZIOMEK, and RHONDA K. KOWALCHUK
Southern lIIinois University

Perspective-taking, or the ability to demonstrate awareness of

informational states in oneself and in others, has been of recent
interest in behavioral psychology. This is, in part, a result of a
modern behavioral approach to human language and cognition
known as Relational Frame Theory, wh ich views perspective-
taking as generalized operant behavior based upon a history of
reinforcement for relational responding. Previous lines of research
have developed a behavioral protocol for assessing relational
learning deficits in perspective-taking and have implicated the lack
of perspective-taking as a basis for the social deficits observed in
children with autism. However, no empirical investigations have
been conducted on relationallearning deficits in perspective-taking
with autistic populations. The present paper reports 2 experiments
that investigated whether children with autism spectrum disorder
demonstrated relational learning deficits in a perspective-takihg
task as compared to their age-matched typicalill developing peers.
We also investigated whether accuracy in perspective-taking
correlated with scores on standardized instruments commonly
used in the assessment of autism spectrum disorder, and whether
relational responding in perspective-taking improves following a
history of reinforcement for such responding. Results of Experiment
1 demonstrated statistically significant differences in errors as a
function of type of relation, while visual inspection revealed that
participants with autism spectrum disorder made more errors
than typically developing children on 2 of the 3 types of relations
examined. Results of Experiment 2 illustrated that a history of
reinforced relational responding improved performance on the
perspective-taking task.

This investigation was supported by a research grant from TAP (The lilinois Autism
Project, funded by Illinois Department of Human Services), awarded to Ruth Anne
Rehfeldt. Portions of this paper were presented at the annual Southern Illinois University
Phi Kappa Delta & Phi Kappa Phi Research Day, Carbondale, Illinois, April 2005, and at
the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, lliinois, May 2005.
We acknowledge Rocio Rosales, Vors Garcia, and Holly L. Bihler for their help with data
collection and subject running. In addition, we thank the Center for Autism Spectrum
Disorders and the Rehabilitation Institute at Southern lliinois University for the use of space
for conducting experimental sessions. Finally, we thank Steve Hayes for comments and
suggestions on a previous version.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

24 REHFELDT ET AL.

Traditional developmental psychologists have defined perspective-

taking as an individual's awareness of informational states in oneself
and in others (Baron-Gohen, 1995; Premack & Woodruff, 1978).
Frequently investigated under the rubric of "Theory of Mind," results fram
developmental studies have been interpreted to suggest that children
do not demonstrate perspective-taking abilities until they reach certain
developmental milestones. For example, in a study by Dixon and Moore
(1990), 5-, 7-, and 10-year-old children were read aseries of short stories
about a child emptying his toy box. The stories varied in terms of the
boy's intentions for emptying the box and the information his mother
had about his intentions. Only the older children were able to correctly
identify discrepancies in the boy's and the mother's perspectives on
his informational states, thus demonstrating perspective-taking skills.
A similar study by Taylor, Gartwright, and Bowden (1991) required
children to respond to aseries of questions regarding the knowledge
possessed by several characters in a story about the contents of a
picture. Responding correctly to the questions required the children to
change perspectives between the characters in the story. Ghildren of 4
years of age were unable to pass the test, but children of 6 years of age
did pass the test but made more errors than adult participants. Research
by Baren-Gohen, Tager-Flusberg, and Gohen (2000), which exposed
children to five levels of understanding about the informational states in
other people, found that children excel on perspective-taking tasks once
they are approximately 5 years of age. This body of findings contributes to
the notion that perspective-taking skills emerge over the course of typical
child development.
Viewing a situation from the perspective of another individual would
seem to contribute greatly to an individual's success in social situations.
For example, reciprocal conversation, cooperative play, and the display
of sympathy and empathy for others are all social abilities that require
an effective repertoire of perspective-taking. Because autism spectrum
disorder is characterized by deficits in the ability to form reciprocal
social relationships (Klin, Volkmar, & Sparrow, 1992), some researchers
have suggested that deficits in perspective-taking may be closely tied
to, if not the basis of, the social deficits commonly observed in autism.
Indeed, several studies have found that individuals with autism show
marked deficiencies on perspective-taking tasks. A task known as the
"Sally Anne task" (see Wimmer & Perner, 1983) was administered to
typically developing children, children with autism, and children with Down
syndrome in a study conducted by Baron-Gohen, Leslie, and Frith (1985).
Frequently used in the study of perspective-taking, this task involves
two dolls named Sally and Anne. The task begins with Sally placing a
marble in a basket and then leaving the scene, at wh ich time Anne enters
the scene, removes the marble fram the basket, and places it in a box.
Sally returns to the scene, and participants are asked where Sally would
look for the marble. Baron-Gohen et al. (1985) found that children with
autism showed considerable difficulties with the task, whereas typically
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 25

developing children and children with Down syndrome could easily

answer the experimenter's questions about the Sally doll's perspective
(the reader is also referred to Baren-Gohen, 1989). LeBlanc, Goates,
Daneshvar, Gharlop-Ghristy, Morris, & Lancaster (2003) similarly found
that children with autism were strikingly deficient in their performance on
aversion of the Sally Anne task. The children weire only able to pass the
task after intensive behavioral intervention involving video modeling and
positive reinforcement, and even then, the children's generalization of
perspective-taking skills to new situations was limited. Finally, Dawson
and Fernald (1987) found that the performance of children with autism
on a perspective-taking task was positively correlated with tl1e children's
social competence, as measured by two standardized scales. In other
words, those children who performed worse on the task were clinically
evaluated as being less socially competent.
Although the topic of perspective-taking is not new to developmental
psychology, behavior analysts have only recently begun to investigate
the topic both theoretically and empirically. A behavioral perspective
on perspective-taking is important, for rather than assuming that a
perspective-taking repertoire emerges as a function of development,
behavior analysts would conte nd that specific learning histories give rise
to the higher order skill. It thus follows that establishing the necessary
learning history may help remediate deficits in perspective-taking for
persons with autism and related disorders. REllational Frame Theory
(RFT), a contemporary behavioral account of human language and
cognition (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 200'1), has recently inspired
theoretical analyses and experimental investi~lations of perspective-
taking. Proponents of RFT assert that derived relational responding
constitutes the basis of much, if not all, of cornplex human behavior,
including perspective-taking. RFT contends that verbal humans come
to display arbitrarily applicable relational responding via a history of
responding to multiple exemplars. In other words, an individual may
experience specific reinforcement for responding relationally to some
subset of stimuli, and then prove capable of responding relationally with
other stimuli in the absence of reinforcement. Relational responding, then,
can be regarded as a generalized, overarching response class (Hayes,
Fox, Gifford, Wilson, Barnes-Holmes, & Healy, 2001). With regards to
perspective-taking more specifically, RFT proponents would suggest that
perspective-taking is a form of generalized operant responding involving
"deictic" relations, or relations between stimuli tha1t cannot be traced to the
formal dimensions among the stimuli (Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, & Dymond,
2001). The perspective-taking repertoire emerges following a reinforced
history of responding relationally to questions such as, "What would you
do if you were me," "wh at are you doing then," "what will I be doing there,"
"what would you do there if you were me, " and other questions which
require the speaker to change perspective betwHen different references
of person (i.e., I versus you), place (i.e., here versus there), and time
(i.e., now versus then). Thus, Barnes-Holmes et al. (2001) suggest that
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

26 REHFELDT ET AL.

learning to respond appropriately to questions that require the child to

change perspective is critical in establishing frames that specify the
relationship between stimuli in terms of the perspective of the speaker,
the frames of I-You, Here-There, and Now-Then being the most critical.
Barnes-Holmes et al. (2001) suggest that the relational properties of the
frames of I versus You, Here versus There, and Now versus Then are
abstracted through learning to talk about one's own perspective in relation
to the perspectives of other individuals (Barnes-Holmes et al. , 2001).
Thus, a reinforced history of relating I versus You, Here versus There, and
Now versus Then may lead to the emergence of a sophisticated repertoire
of generalized perspective-taking.
An innovative study which paved the way toward an understanding
of perspective-taking as derived relational responding was reported by
McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, and Barnes-Holmes (2004). These researchers
report the use of a comprehensive protocol for evaluating perspective-
taking skills in terms of the three frames of I-you, here-there, and now-
then. Coined the Barnes-Holmes protocol, this protocol presents a variety
of relational perspective-tasks involving simple, reversed, and double
reversed I-you, here-there, and now-then relations. The protocol was
administered to a large group of participants spanning fve age groups,
ranging from early childhood through adulthood. The protocol was
originally administered in a conversation format between the experimenter
and the participant, in which the participant had to respond relationally to
correctly answer questions such as, "I have a green brick and you have
a red brick. If I was you and you were me, wh ich brick would you have?
Which brick would I have?" No consequences were delivered for correct
or incorrect responses. It was found that errors on the task decreased as a
function of the participant's age. These findings lend support to the notion
that derived relational responding may be the basis of a perspective-
taking repertoire, as weil as set the stage for further research on relational
learning and perspective-taking.
Because perspective-taking deficits have been identified in populations
of persons with autism, a worthwhile endeavor would seem to be to
determine if children with autism spectrum disorder display deficits in
relational learning on the Barnes-Holmes protocol, as compared to their
typically developing peers. If indeed deficits in relational learning are
identified, exposing such individuals to a reinforced history of responding
relationally to I versus you, here versus there, and now versus then may
weil prove to ameliorate these deficits and permit for the generalization
of perspective-taking to other perspective-taking tasks or situations. The
purpose of Experiment 1 was to determine if children with autism spectrum
disorder, specifically, high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome,
would perform significantly worse on the Barnes-Holmes protocol than
their age-matched typically developing peers. We also investigated
whether accuracy on the Barnes-Holmes protocol correlated with scores
on standardized instruments commonly used in the assessment of autism
spectrum disorder. If in fact accuracy on the protocol was shown to correlate
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 27

with assessment scores, this would suggest that relational learning deficits
in perspective-taking may underlie the social deficits commonly observed
in persons with autism. The purpose of Experiment 2 was to determine
if in fact performance on the Barnes-Holmes protocol improved following
specific reinforcement for responding relationally. If so, it could be argued
that perspective-taking involves derived relational responding.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants
A nonprobability convenience sampie was used to obtain two groups
of 9 children to serve as participants. Participants were recruited via
newspaper ads and flyers distributed at local schools and clinics in the
greater southern Illinois region. Parents and children were financially
compensated for their time and travel. The experimental group consisted
of 9 males ranging in chronological age from 6 years and 8 months to
13 years and 4 months. All had been previously diagnosed with high-
functioning autism or Asperger syndrome; proof of diagnosis was provided
upon the parent and child's arrival for the experiment. Participants in the
control group consisted of 9 typically developing children (5 females and
4 males) ranging in chronological age from 6 years and 5 months to 13
years and 8 months. Control participants were matched to experimental
participants on the basis of three developmental age bands: Middle
Table 1

Diagnosis, Chronological Age, and DevelopmElntal Stage of

Experimental Participants and their Matches
Experimental Group Control Group
Participant Diagnosis CA Stage Partici pa nt CA Stage
DR High Functioning 6-8 Middle KG 1 6-5 Middle
Autism Childhood Childhood
RH High Functioning 6-10 Middle KG2 6-5 Middle
Autism Childhood Childhood
ZR Asperger's 8-6 Middle SG 8-7 Middle
Childhood Childhood
DG Asperger's 10-5 Late TC 10-2 Late
Childhood Childhood
BC Asperger's 11 Late MP 10-2 Late
Childhood Childhood
WM Asperger's 11-1 Late CY 9-2 Late
Childhood Childhood
NW 1 Asperger's 11-2 Late AS 10-4 Late
Childhood Childhood
TM Asperger's 11-8 Late CG 11-2 Late
Childhood Childhood
NW2 Asperger's 13-4 Adolescence ER 13-8 Adolescence
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

28 REHFELDT ET AL.

childhood (age range 6-8 years), late childhood (age range 9-11 years),
and adolescence (age range 12-14 years). This was done in attempts to
create groups that were generally homogeneous in chronological age.
Table 1 shows diagnosis, chronological age, and developmental stage for
each experimental participant and a matched control participant. Children
who did not read at their grade level were screened out of the experiment
via discussion with parents and practice trials prior to the experiment.

Setting and Apparatus

Experimental sessions were conducted in quiet, secluded areas of
either the Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders or the Rehabilitation
Institute at Southern Illinois University. The perspective-taking task was
presented upon a laptop PC and was created in Microsoft® PowerPoint®
with program macros controlled by Microsoft® Visual Basic Editor. The
program was created by Ruth Anne Rehfeldt and Jeffrey Dillen. All aspects
of the task were automated. Participants were allowed brief breaks from
the task at any time, during which they engaged in a fun activity with
the experimenter (i.e., jumping on a trampoline, playing a computer
game, etc.). While their child was completing the task, the child's parent
completed two clinical assessment interviews with a graduate student in
a nearby room.

Procedure
Clinical assessments. Two clinical assessments, the Vi ne land
Adaptive Behavior Scales - Interview Edition (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti,
1984) and the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) - Current
Form (Rutter, Bailey, & Lord, 2004) were administered to one parent of
each participant by a Master's level graduate student trained in clinical
interviewing and in the scoring and interpretation of both instruments.
All interviews were videotaped. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales
- Interview Edition was designed to be administered in a semistructured
interview format to a parent or caregiver of an individual between the ag es
of birth and 18 years and 11 months or an adult with low levels of cognitive
functioning. The Vineland scales measure an individual's adjustment to
the demands of everyday life, providing a profile of those skills in which an
individual habitually engages on a day-to-day basis (Sparrow et al. , 1984).
Scores are provided in each of the following domains: Communication,
Daily Living Skills, Socialization, Motor Skills, and Maladaptive behaviors.
This study assessed participants' functioning levels in the first three
domains only. The Vineland scales provide scores that are indicative of
the chronological age at which the individual is currently functioning in
each domain. The SCQ is a parent-report screening tool that provides
a dimensional measure of autism spectrum disorder symptomatology,
providing a cutoff score that indicates the likelihood that an individual has
an autism spectrum disorder (Rutter et al., 2004). The score can also be
used as an indication of the severity of ASO symptomatology. The SCQ-
Current Form is concerned only with behavior that has occurred during the
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 29

past 3 months of the child's life, and assesses thme areas of functioning:
Reciprocal Social Interaction; Communication; ancl Restricted, Repetitive,
and Stereotyped Patterns of Behavior. A cutoff score of 15 or greater
suggests that the individual may have an autism spectrum disorder. Both
assessment interviews took between 1-2 hours t01tal.
The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales - Interview Edition is to
be conducted over the course of a semistructured interview with the
interviewer asking aseries of general open-ended questions. Alternatively,
the SCQ requires the parent to simply respond in the affirmative or
negative as to whether or not their child has displayed a particular
symptom in the last 3 months. For this reason, reliability was established
for the Vineland interviews only. Interobserver agreement was calculated
for 50% of the interviews by having a second Master's level graduate
student who was also trained in clinical interviewing skills and in the
scoring and interpretation of the Vineland Scales independently watch a
videotaped interview and score items on the behavior scales. The scores
were then compared on an item-by-item basis to the scores derived
from the interviewer. An agreement was scored if both the interviewer
and the observer scored an item the same. Percentage of agreement
was obtained overall and for all three domains separately. Interobserver
agreement was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements
by the total number of agreements plus disagmements, multiplied by
100. Interobserver agreement for the Communication domain was 95%
(range 86%-100%); interobserver agreement for the Daily Living Skills
domain was 95% (range 91 %-97%); and interobsE~rver agreement for the
Socialization domain was 93% (range 70%-100%). Overall interobserver
agreement was 94% (range 88%-96%).
Perspective-taking. All participants were exposed to the same
procedure. A modified version of the Barnes-Holmes protocol, as reported
by McHugh et al. (2004), was presented in an automated format. The
protocol was presented as a test, with no feedback presented for correct
or incorrect responses. However, the experimentm provided intermittent
general praise for compliance with the task (i.e., "~Iood working;" "you are
doing a great job paying attention."). Prior to the experiment, participants
were presented with aseries of practice trials to ensure that they had
sufficient reading comprehension skills to complete the task. Practice trials
consisted of word problems that would not be presented in the perspective-
taking task but were in the same format as the ques1tions in the perspective-
taking task (e.g., "if the sky is yellow and the sun is blue, what color is the
sky? What color is the sun?"). Participants were told that their job was to
read the question and select one of two command boxes below the question
to select their answer to the question. They were then oriented to the
questions presented on the screen and to operating the computer mouse
to answer the questions. Participants were requirBd to read the practice
trials aloud. Participants who did not read the practice trials correctly or
who answered the questions incorrectly did not complete the perspective-
taking task. Although some children were dismissEld from the experiment
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

30 REHFELDT ET AL.

because of insufficient reading skills, all of the chi/dren in the reported study
read at grade level and displayed no reading comprehension problems.
The participants were required to intermittently read the trials aloud as they
worked through the perspective-taking task to ensure this.
The modified version of the Barnes-Holmes protocol that was used in
this study consisted of 57 total trials. Each trial consisted of two questions
(e.g., "which brick do I have?" "Which brick do you have?"). A participant
had to answer both questions correctly in order for the trial to be scored as
correct. If a participant asked the experimenter a question during the task,
the experimenter reminded the participant that his or her job was to answer
the questions and he or she was not allowed to help the participant. As was
the case in McHugh et al. (2004), three types of relations were presented
in the protocol. These included simple relations, reversed relations, and
double reversed relations. Within each of these three types of relations
were trials that evaluated responding to three different perspective-taking
frames (I-you, here-there, and now-then). Eight trials for the simple relations
were included in the protocol, inciuding 2 I-you, 2 here-there, and 4 now-
then trial types. Thirty-six trials for the reversed relations were presented,
including 8 I-you, 12 here-there, and 16 now-then relations. Thirteen trials
for the double reversed relations were presented, including 4 I-you/here-
there and 9 here-there/now-then trial types. The number of trials for each
relation and each trial type followed closely that used by McHugh et al.
(2004). Trials for all relation types and trial types were presented in a
random order. Table 2 shows the questions that were presented for each
of the three relations and for each of the trial types within each relation
tested. (The reader is also referred to McHugh et al., 2004, for additional
Table 2

The Perspective-Taking Protocol Employed in the Two Experiments

SIMPLE RELATIONS
Simple I-YOU:
I have a red brick and you have a green brick.
Which brick do I have? (Red)
Which brick do YOU have? (Green)
I have a green brick and you have a red brick.
Which brick do YOU have? (Red)
Wh ich brick do I have? (Green)
Simple HERE-THERE:
I am silling here on the blue chair and you are silling there on the black chair.
Where am I silling? (Blue)
Where are YOU silling? (Black)
I am silling here on the black chair and you are silling there on the blue chair.
Where are YOU silling? (Blue)
Where am I silling? (Black)
Simple NOW-THEN:
Yesterday I was watehing television, today I am reading.
What am I doing now? (Reading)
What was I doing then? (Television)
Yesterday I was reading, today I am watehing television.
What was I doing then? (Reading)
What am I doing now? (Television)
Yesterday you were reading, today you are watehing television.
What are YOU doing now? (Television)
What were YOU doing then? (Reading)
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 31

Yesterday you were watching television, today you are reading.

What were YOU doing then? (Television)
What are YOU doing now? (Reading)
REVERSED RELATIONS
Reversed I-YOU:
I have a red brick and you have a green brick. II I was you and you were me.
Wh ich brick would I have? (Green)
Wh ich brick would YOU have? (Red)
I have a green brick and you have a red brick. II I was you and you were me.
Wh ich brick would YOU have? (Green)
Which brick would I have? (Red)
I have a red brick and you have a green brick. If I was you and you were me.
Which brick would YOU have? (Red)
Which brick would I have? (Green)
I have a green brick and you have a red brick. II I was you and you were me.
Which brick would I have? (Red)
Wh ich brick would YOU have? (Green)
I am sitting here on the black chair and you are sitting there on the blue chair. If I was you and you were me.
Where would YOU be sitting? (Black)
Where would I be sitting? (Blue)
I am sitting here on the black chair and you are sitting there on the blue chair. II I was you and you were me.
Where would I be sitting? (Blue)
Where would YOU be sitting? (Black)
I am sitting here on the blue chair and you are sitting there on the black chair. II I was you and you were me.
Where would I be sitting? (Black)
Where would YOU be sitting? (Blue)
I am sitting here on the blue chair and you are sitting there on the black chair. If I was you and you were me.
Where would YOU be sitting? (Blue)
Where would I be sitting? (Black)
Reversed HERE-THERE:
I am sitting here on the blue chair and you are sitting there on the black chair. II here was there and there was here.
Where would YOU be sitting? (Blue)
Where would I be sitting? (Black)
I am sitting here on the black chair and you are sitting there on the blue chair. II here was there and there was here.
Where would I be sitting? (Blue)
Where would YOU be sitting? (Black)
I am sitting here on the blue chair and you are sitting there on the black chair. II hme was there and there was here.
Where would I be sitting? (Black)
Where would YOU be sitting? (Blue)
I am sitting here on the black chair and you are sitting there on the blue chair. If here was there and there was here.
Where would YOU be sitting? (Black)
Where would I be sitting? (Blue)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the blue chair, today I am sitting here on the black chair. II here was there and there was here.
Where would I be sitting now? (Blue)
Where was I sitting then? (Black)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the black chair, today I am sitting here on the blue chair. II here was there and there was here.
Where was I sitting then? (Blue)
Where would I be sitting now? (Black)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the blue chair, today I am sitting here on the black chair. II here was there and there was here.
Where was I sitting then? (Black)
Where would I be sitting now? (Blue)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the black chair, today I am sitting here on the blue chair. II here was there and there was here.
Where would I be sitting now? (Black)
Where was I sitting then? (Blue)
Yesterday you were sitting there on the blue chair, today you are sitting here on th,e black chair. II here was there and
there was here.
Where would you be sitting now? (Blue)
Where were you sitting then? (Black)
Yesterday you were sitting there on the blue chair, today you are sitting here on the black chair. II here was there and
there was here.
Where were you sitting then? (Black)
Where would you tie sitting now? (Blue)
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

32 REHFELDT ET AL.

Yesterday you were sitting there on the black chair, today you are sitting here on the blue chair. Ir here was there and
there was here.
Where would you be sitting now? (Black)
Where were you sitting hen? (Blue)
Yesterday you were sitting here on the black chair, today you are sitting there on the blue chair. If here was there and
there was here.
Where were you sitting then? (Blue)
Where would you be sitting now? (Black)
Reversed NOW-THEN:
Yesterday I was watehing television, today I am reading. II now was then and then was now.
What was I doing then? (Reading)
What would I be doing now? (Television)
Yesterday I was reading, today I am watching television. II now was then and then was now.
What would I be doing now? (Reading)
What was I doing then? (Television)
Yesterday I was watching television, today I am reading. Ir now was then and then was now.
What was I doing now? (Television)
What would I be doing then? (Reading)
Yesterday I was reading, today I am watching television. Ir now was then and then was now.
What was I doing then? (Television)
What would I be doing now? (Reading)
Yesterday you were watching television, today you are reading. II now was then and then was now.
What were you doing then? (Reading)
What would you be doing now? (Television)
Yesterday you were reading, today you are watehing television. II now was then and then was now.
What were you doing then? (Television)
What would you be doing now? (Reading)
Yesterday you were watehing television, today you are reading. II now was then and then was now.
What would you be doing now? (Television)
What were you doing then? (Reading)
Yesterday you were reading, today you are watohing television. Ir now was then and then was now.
What would you be doing now? (Reading)
What were you doing then? (Television)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the blue chair, today I am sitting here on the black chair. II now was then and then was now.
Where would I be sitting now? (Blue)
Where was I sitting then? (Black)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the blue chair, today I am sitting here on the black chair. II now was then and then was now.
Where was I sitting then? (Black)
Where would I be sitting now? (Blue)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the black chair, today I am sitting here on the blue chair. II now was then and then was now.
Where would I be sitting now? (Black)
Where was I sitting then? (Blue)
Yesterday I was sitting there on the black chair, today I am sitting here on the blue chair. Ir now was then and then was now.
Where was I sitting then? (Blue)
Where would I be sitting now? (Black)
Yesterday you were sitting there on the blue chair, today you are sitling here on the black chair. If now was then and
then was now.
Where were you si!ting then? (Black)
Where would you be sitting now? (Blue)
Yesterday you were sitting there on the blue chair, today you are sitting here on the black chair. II now was then and
then was now.
Where would you be sitting now? (Blue)
Where were you sitting hen? (Black)
Yesterday you were sitting there on the black chair, today you are sitting here on the blue chair. If now was then and
then was now.
Where were you sitting then? (Blue)
Where would you be sitting now? (Black)
Yesterday you were sitting there on the black chair, today you are si!ting here an the blue chair. II now was then and
then was now.
Where wauld you be sitting naw? (Black)
Where were you sitting then? (Blue)
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 33

DOUBLE REVERSED RELATIONS

I-YOU/HERE-THERE:
I am silling here on the blue chair and you are silling there on the black chair. If I was you and you were me and II here
was there and there was here.
Where would I be silling? (Blue)
Where would YOU be silling? (Black)
I am silling here on the black chair and you are silling there on the blue chair. II I was you and you were me and II here
was there and there was here.
Where would I be silling? (Black)
Where would YOU be silling? (Blue)
I am silling here on the blue chair and you are silling there on the black chair. II I was you and you were me and II here
was there and there was here.
Where YOU be silling? (Black)
Where would I be silling? (Blue)
I am silling here on the black chair and you are silling there on the blue chair. II I was you and you were me and II here
was there and there was here.
Where would YOU be silling? (Blue)
Where would I be silling? (Black)
HERE-THERElNOW-THEN:
Yesterday I was silling there on the blue chair, today I am silling here on the black chair. II here was there and there was
here and II now was then and then was now.
Where would I be silling then? (Blue)
Where would I be silling now? (Black)
Yesterday I was silling there on the blue chair, today I am silling here on the black chair. II here was there and there was
here and If now was then and then was now.
Where would I be silling now? (Black)
Where would I be silling then? (Blue)
Yesterday I was silling there on the black chair, today I am silling here on the blue chair. If here was there and there was
here and II now was then and then was now.
Where would I be silling then? (Black)
Where would I be silling now? (Blue)
Yesterday I was silling there on the black chair, today I am silling here on the blu,e chair. II here was there and there was
here and II now was then and then was now.
Where would I be silling now? (Blue)
Where would I be silling then? (Black)
Yesterday you were silling there on the blue chair, today you are silling here on the black chair. If here was there and
there was here and If now was then and then was now.
Where would you be silling then? (Blue)
Where would you be silling now? (Black)
Yesterday you were silling here on the blue eh air, today you are silling here on the black chair. II here was there and
there was here and II now was then and then was now.
Where would you be silling now? (Black)
Where would you be silling then? (Blue)
Yesterday you were silling there on the black chair, today you are silling here on the blue chair. II here was there and
there was here and II now was then and then was now.
Where would you be silling then? (Black)
Where would you be silling now? (Blue)
Yesterday you were silling there on the black chair, today you are silling here on Ilhe blue chair. II here was there and
there was here and If now was then and then was now.
Where would you be silling now? (Blue)
Where would you be silling then? (Black)

Note. The correct response lor each question is shown in parentheses. The reader is also relerred to McHugh et al., 2004.

detail on the Barnes-Holmes protocol. Correct answers to test trials for the
simple relations required responses that were idenltical to the arrangements
specified in the question. Correct answers to test trials for the reversed
relations required the participant to reverse the I-you, now-then, or here-
there arrangements specified in the question. Correct answers to test trials
for the double reversed relations required the participant to simultaneously
reverse the I-you and here-there or here-there and now-then arrangements
specified in the question. Correct answers for each trial type for each
relation type are shown in Table 2.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

34 REHFELDT ET AL.

I h~\u '" Inhlld Y!RI h~\u !J!III

lIic:t " was JOU rod JOU 'ftft II1II,
..... ,-- .....
V--".--'1IireII. ..,.
".
0..1

SÜll' le I· Y
00 Relatioo R~(fSed Now·Then Relation Dooble R~trsoo Htre-
ThtreIN rJ{{ ·Th~
Figure 1. On-screen representation of simple, reversed, and double reversed relations trials.

Figure 1 shows on-screen representations of a simple I-you trial, a

reversed now-then trial, and a double reversed here-there/now-then trial.
Participants were required to click the computer mouse upon one of the
two command buttons presented für each question in order to indicate
their answer. Participants' responses to one of the two command boxes

30.00

CI
25.00

.
~
7i
c:
c:
o
; 20.00
:::11
a
c:
o
~ 15.00
u
'e:::11
E
E 10.00
o
o
ii
'ü
o 5.00
CI)

0.00

Experimental Comol

Partieipant Group
Figure 2. Mean scores on the Social Communication Questionnaire for the two experimental
groups.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 35

presented for the second question advanced to the next trial. The left-
right location of the correct and incorrect command boxes was randomly
determined across all trials.

Results and Oiscussion

Age Equiva/ence and SCQ

Shown in Figures 2-4 are the scores on the SCQ and the Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales. Figure 2 shows that the mean score on the
SCQ for the experimental group was 20.78 (SD = 6.02), and the mean
score for the control group was 3.22 (SO = 2.17). Figure 3 shows that the

210.00

.
.,
.
.,C
>
"5
I80.oo

fT
.,
W 1SO.oo

....
CI
<

~ 120.oo
o
..
."
C

Ci
C 90.00
o
4

:>

60.00

EXJ)enmertlll Conlrol

P~rticlpant Group
Figure 3. Overall mean age equivalence scores on the Vi ne land Adaptive Behavior scales
for the two experimental groups.

mean overall age equivalence on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales

was 79.44 months for the experimental group (SO = 10.17) and 119.89
months for the control group (SO = 40.42). Figun3 4 shows that the mean
age equivalence on the communication subdomain of the Vineland was
80.79 months for the experimental group (SO =14.29) and 111 months for
the control group (SO = 35.90). These results sU~Jgest that the two groups
differed substantiallyon these measures, althouglh considerable variability
was present in the results for the control group.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

36 REHFELDT ET AL.

200.00

., 180.00

.,cv
~ 160.00
':;
IIT
W
., 140.00
:t C
o
.~
v
120.00

o
..
·C
~ 100.00
E
o
o 80.00

60.00

Control

Participant Group
Figure 4. Overall mean age equivalence scores for the !wo experimental groups on the
Communication scale of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales.

CONTROL PARTICIPANTS (no autlsm)

100
90
EI) _tt"P,10
70 --KG1,6
Ö KG2,6
~
60
5 ER,13
# 50 --SG,8
iE 40
--eG,11
__ Cy,g
3J -TC,10
20 -AS,10

10

0
Simple Reversed Double Reversed
ReIMIon
Figure 5. Mean percentage of errors for each individual participant in the control group on
the simple, reversed, and double reversed relations.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 37

Perspective-Taking
Shown in Figures 5 and 6 is the mean percentage of errors on the
simple, reversed, and double reversed relations, for the control group
(Figure 5) and the experimental group (Figure 6). Figure 5 shows that
there was considerable variability ac ross the test trials for the different
relations for the control group. It can be seen from the figure that several

EXPERIMENTAL PARTlCIPANTS (hf autlsmlAsp_l

100
9)
-.-ZR,B
00 --RH,6
70 TM,11

i
WM,11
60 __ NW1,13
# 50 --NW2,11
iE 40 --BC, 11
-OG,10
3l
--OR,6
20
10
0
RBIaIUon TMJB

Figure 6. Mean percentage of errors for each individual participant in the experimental group
on the simple, reversed, and double reversed relations.

participants (MP, eG, and ER) made the fe west errors on the test trials
for the simple relations, and the most errors on test trials for the double
reversed relations. SG, AS, and KG2 made the most errors on test trials
for the reversed relations. Figure 6 shows that the participants with autism
typically made fewer errors on test trials for the simple relations, and more
errors on test trials for the reversed relations. NW1 (13 years old), an
outlier for the group, made fewer errors across nearly all test trials than
the other experimental participants, making no errors on test trials for the
simple relations and fewer than 10 errors on test trials for the reversed
relations. Overall, the figures show that most of the participants in both
groups made more errors on the reversed relations than the simple
relations, but it wasn't necessarily the case that the most errors were
made on test trials for the double reversed relations. No particular pattern
of errors between the I-you, here-there, now-then, I-you/here-there, and
here-there/now-then trial types was observed.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

38 REHFELDT ET AL.

Shown in Figure 7 is the pattern of overall mean percentage errors

for the simple, reversed, and double reversed relations, plotted separately
for the experimental and control participants. The figure shows that the
experimental participants committed more errors on test trials for the
reversed and double reversed relations; this difference is most marked
for the reversed relations. A 2 x 3, between- by within-subjects analysis
of variance was conducted on group (experimental, control) by relation
(simple, reversed, double reversed) to test for differences between mean

60.00 Parlicipanl Group

'"
- - Experiment..
I \ -C_OI
\
\

,
I
55.00 I \

...o
...
W 50.00
.
•
GI

~
..
45.00
...u
a..
..
:i
::::E
4000

35.00

30.00

Simple Reversed Double Reversed

Figure 7. Mean percentage of errors for the two experimental groups on the simple,
reversed, and double reversed relations.
percentage errors for experimental vs. control groups ac ross all test
trial types, differences between mean percentage errors for the simple
vs. reversed vs. double reversed relations for both groups, and for an
interaction effect between group and relation (simple, reversed, and
double reversed). The main effect for relation was found to be statistically
significant, F(2, 15,) = 12.870, P = .001, by the Wilks' Lambda Criterion.
Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between the
overall mean percentage errors on the simple vs. reversed relations, F(1)
= 18.520, P = .000, indicating that substantially more errors were made
on the reversed relations than the simple relations for both groups of
participants. Pairwise comparisons revealed a nearly significant difference
between the mean percentage errors on the simple vs. double reversed
relations, p = .045, but this finding was found to be nonsignificant after
adjusting for inflated Type I error rate.
The interaction between group and relation (simple, reversed, double
reversed) approached statistical significance, F (2, 15) = 3.354, P = 0.063,
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 39

by the Wilks' Lambda Criterion. Because Figure 7 revealed substantial

differences between the two groups' performances on the reversed
relations, differences between the groups on reversed trials were more
closely examined. Figure 8 shows the pattern of mean percentage errors
for the trial types within the reversed relations (I-you, here-there, and now-
then) for the two groups. Although the comparisons were not statistically
significant, the figure shows that the experimental group made more
errors on all reversed relation test trial types than the control group.

-- _-:iI
"
""
Particlpanl Group,
- - Expermentli
- Control
60.00
",
",
...o
... "

......
Il:i "
5500
"
ao
" 'J
c

..
~ 50.00

....
0.
c

:::E 45.00

40.00

I-YOU HERE-THERE NOW-THEN

Figure 8. Mean percentage 01 errors lor the two experimental groups on the I-you, here-
there, and now-then reversed relations.

Relationship Between Perspective-Ta kin 9 and Clinical Assessments

Correlations were calculated between scores on the perspective-
taking task and the sca, overall age equivalence as measured on
the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, and age equivalence on the
communication, daily living, and socialization domains of the Vineland.
A modest correlation between the percentage of errors on the now-then
reversed relations and the Daily Living Skills domain of the Vineland was
found, r(18) = -.512, P < .05, indicating that lower age equivalence in daily
living skills was associated with a greater number of errors on the now-
then reversed relations.
Our ability to draw firm conclusions from ttlese findings is limited
because of the small sampie size and low statistical power; in addition,
within-group variability, particularly within the control group, may have
masked further differences between the groups. Nonetheless, some
interesting trends were apparent in the data, one of the most important of
which was the difference between the number of errors on the reversed,
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

40 REHFELDT ET AL.

versus simple, relations. This difference was most pronounced for the
group of participants with autism. These results suggest that the test
trials for the reversed relations required a more complex form of relational
responding than test trials for the simple relations: Test trials for the
reversed relations required the derivation of the deictic relations. The
difference in errors between the simple and double reversed relations
also approached statistical significance, but fewer errors were observed
ac ross all participants on test trials for the double reversed relations
relative to the reversed relations. This finding is somewhat surprising, as
the double reversed relations required a more complex form of relational
responding than the reversed relations. McHugh et al. (2004) did obtain
such systematic differences in errors between the simple, reversed,
and double reversed relations, with errors most likely on test trials for
the double reversed relations. However, correct responses for test trials
assessing the double reversed relations were the same as those required
for test relations assessing simple relations. Consider, for example, the
following problem: "I am sitting here on the blue chair and you are sitting
there on the black chair. If I was you and you were me and if here was
there and there was here." This problem can be answered correctly
simply by reading the first sentence. Thus, while McHugh et al. (2004)
contend that the double reversed relations require a more complex form
of derivation than the simple and reversed relations, it is possible that
participants were not responding relationally at all when presented with
double reversed relational tasks. Needed are analyses to confirm that
participants' performances on double reversed tasks are in fact indicative
of relational responding rather than a participant's reading the first part of
the problem only.
A modest correlation was found between participants' performance
on the perspective-taking task and scores on one domain of the Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales. This correlation was found between scores
on the now-then reversed relations and age equivalent scores on the
Daily Living scale. It would have been expected that performance on the
perspective-taking task would correlate with scores on the Communication
or Socialization domains, as perspective-taking deficits would seem to
contribute to an individual's overall adjustment in such areas. Nonetheless,
the present finding alludes to the rale of derived relational responding and
perspective-taking in adaptive behavior. Future research should explore
this relationship further.
The group differences detected in this study raise the question
whether indeed individuals with high-functioning autism are deficient
on relational learning tasks; more specifically, relational learning tasks
in perspective-taking, relative to their age-matched peers. Results fram
this experiment suggest that such group differences do exist. One might
be quick to attribute these differences to differences in reading ability,
which might be expected to be lower in children with autism. However,
efforts were made to ensure that all of the participants could read and
comprehend the practice and test questions, and no obvious delays in
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 41

reading comprehension were observed on the part of any of the children

at any time over the course of the experiment. If there were even minor
questions about a child's reading ability, he or sl1e was eliminated from
the study. Thus, substantial differences in reading ability between the two
groups seems unlikely. Differences in cognitive functioning, however, may
weil have separated some of the participants with high-functioning autism
from their age-matched peers, and lower levels of cognitive functioning
would undoubtedly create differences in performance on any form of
relational learning task. Thus, the group differences observed may be
caused by differences in overall cognitive ability, rather than differences in
perspective-taking more specifically. Future research aimed at comparing
perspective-taking in children with autism to children without autism might
match participants with autism with a typically dE~veloping peer on 10 or
so me other equivalent measure of cognitive functioning.
The present results suggest that perspective-taking does involve
derived relational responding, as such a repertoire was required of the
task. These results are thus consistent with those of McHugh et al. (2004).
In order to further demonstrate a relational learning conceptualization of
perspective-taking, it is necessary to show that performance on the Barnes-
Holmes protocol is indeed sensitive to reinforcement contingencies,
and that the relations can in fact be shaped up through exposure to
reinforcement. Such a finding would suggest that perspective-taking is a
class of operant behavior. The purpose of Experiment 2 was, therefore,
to further evaluate the notion that perspective-taking may emerge via a
history of reinforced relational responding. In this experiment, the Barnes-
Holmes protocol was administered to 2 typically developing children who
had served in Experiment 1. We specifically questioned whether the
simple, reversed, and double reversed I-you, he!re-there, and now-then
relations could be taught via exposure to reinforcement contingencies.
Furthermore, we assessed whether the double reversed relations truly
emerged as relational operants for the 2 participants, which would not be
the case if the participants responded to the double reversed test trials by
answering only the first part of each question. In order to document the
emergence of a relational operant, Hayes and Ouinones (2005) suggest
depicting the increasing probability of relation-consistent responding as
training advances. Training data in the present experiment were thus
analyzed in accordance with the recommendations of these authors. Unlike
Experiment 1 feedback was delivered for correct and incorrect responses.
Following mastery of each set of relations, a posttest, conducted under
extinction, was administered. No published study to date has reported the
use of this protocol in teaching perspective-taking skills.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

42 REHFELDT ET AL.

Experiment 2

Method

Participants
Two typically developing children with no known disabilities participated.
80th had served as control participants in Experiment 1. CY was a male
of 9 years and 2 months of age at the time of his participation. AS was a
female of 10 years and 4 months of age at the time of her participation.
Neither participant had scored higher than 80% on the simple, reversed,
or double reversed test trials in Experiment 1.

Setting and Apparatus

The setting and apparatus were identical to those of Experiment 1.

Procedure
Participants' scores on the simple, reversed, and double reversed
relations served as their pretest scores for the particular relations in
Experiment 2. Participants were first trained in the simple relations; once
a mastery criterion of 90% correct was achieved, a posttest for the simple
relations was presented. If the participant met the criterion for inferring
the emergence of the simple relations on the simple relations posttest,
training of the reversed relations was introduced. If the participant did
not meet criterion for inferring the emergence of the simple relations
on the simple relations posttest, training of the simple relations was
again instated, and the simple relations posttest was repeated once the
relations were again shown to be maste red. This process was repeated
for the reversed and double reversed relations. The same number of
trials for each relation type and for each trial type within each relation
type was presented as occurred in Experiment 1. A mastery criterion of at
least 90% correct on the pretests and posttests (7/8 test trials correct for
the simple relations, 32/36 correct for the reversed relations, and 11/13
correct for the double reversed relations) was taken as indicative of the
emergence of the particular relations. No feedback was presented during
pretests and posttests.
All trials presented in the pretests, posttests, and training phases
were identical to those presented in Experiment 1. The particular trial
types were presented within a random order within each pretest, training
phase, and posttest. As was the case in Experiment 1, both questions
presented had to be answered correctly in order for the trial to be
scored as correct. During training, a variety of 3-s animation clips were
presented as reinforcers following correct trials, whereas incorrect trials
produced a slide which read, "Try again," and the respective trial was
then repeated.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 43

Results and Discussion

GY
Figure 9 presents GY's performance on the pretests, posttests, and
training trials for the simple, reversed, and double reversed relations.
Although he initially did not meet criterion performance on the pretest for the
simple relations, GY required only one training block of eight trials to master
the simple relations, after which he responded with 100% accuracy on the

70 "'-H'
PIt-

o~
Prt·test

30

20

10 CY

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21) 21
Sessicn

Figure 9. CY's performance in Experiment 2.

simple relations posttest. GY's pretest score for the reversed relations was
81 %. He mastered the reversed relations in five 36-trial training blocks,
but performed with only 36% accuracy on the first posttest. After six more
36-trial training blocks, GY demonstrated criterion performance on the
second posttest for the reversed relations. GY scored 46% accurate on
the pretest for the double reversed relations, and required only two 13-trial
training blocks to master the relations, after which Ile performed with 100%
accuracy on the double reversed relations posttest.
Shown in Appendix 1 is the percentage of correct trials per training
session for GY. These scores are shown separately for each frame (1-
you, here-there, and now-then), for the three relational tasks. In order
to ascertain the strengthening of each relational operant over training, it
would be expected that the percentage of correct responses would be low
for each frame early on in training, but increasing as training advances
(Hayes & Quinones, 2005). For the simple and reversed relations, it
appears that the three frames were sufficiently stmng at the beginning of
training. Thus, GY's failure to demonstrate mastery during test sessions
may have been caused by the difficulties associated with completing the
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

44 REHFELDT ET AL.

protocol in the absence of feedback. The double reversed relations, on

balance, clearly emerged over the course of training, as CY demonstrated
50% and 56% percent correct during his first training session on
training trials for the I-you/here-there and here-there/now-then frames,
respectively. These latter results suggest that CY was in fact responding
relationally on double reversed relations trials.

AS
Shown in Figure 10 is AS's performance on the pretests, posttests,
and training trials for the simple, reversed, and double reversed relations.
The figure shows that the participant performed with 50% accuracy on the
pretest for the simple relations, and then maste red the relations in three
training blocks. She did not meet criterion performance on the second
posttest for the simple relations, but did following two more training
blocks. AS performed with 47% accuracy on the pretest for the reversed
100
J Oo
....
. , ,,,,t-
." I. RO\OfSod I I I •

..:
...... - -l-~~~----------------------- ---------0~L
I " I

go
" -,- ,
t
I j I I

.
• I I I

.,."..,.
I I I •

.
llel2rnll • " •
'Of ..
1t$1 I •
"
.,
I

cl
\ ..
.,
".,
:: :.
1

..,::, .:
'Of"TI:~1

..,, .
:::~,. ,.. --Mo:
..,,, ...
:: :
"

, I·:.
Simplo
:: :
2D
"
"
:: :
..
10
""
" ,
.,
..
1 3 ~ 7 11 13 1~ 17 1Q 21 23 2~ 27 2Q 31 33 3~ 37 3Q 41 43 4Ii 47
AS :::

40
.,
~1
.
~ ~~
Session

Figure 10. AS's performance in Experiment 2.

relations, and required 41 training blocks to master the reversed relations,
after which time she demonstrated criterion performance on the posttest
for the reversed relations. AS did not meet criterion performance on the
pretest for the double reversed relations, and required only two training
blocks to master the relations, after wh ich she scored 100% accuracy on
the posttest for the double reversed relations.
Shown in Appendix 2 is the percentage of correct trials per training
session for AS. The appendix shows that all of the relational operants
strengthened considerably over the course of training for the simple,
reversed, and double reversed relations. AS responded with only 0% and
33% accuracy during his first training session for the I-you/here-there and
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 45

here-there/now-then frames for the double reversled relations, but 100%

during the second training session for these same frames. This suggests
that by the conciusion of training, AS was in fact responding relationally
on double reversed relations trials.
Results from Experiment 2 indicate that 1the ability to change
perspective between I-and-you, here-and-there, and now-and-then can
be established via a history of reinforced relational responding, as both
participants demonstrated criterion performance on the posttest, conducted
under extinction, following exposure to reinforcement contingencies
for correct changes in perspective. Thus, this protocol was effective in
establishing I-you, here-there, and now-then frames, which specified the
relationship between stimuli in terms of the perspective of the speaker. Not
surprisingly, the simple relations were the easiest for both participants to
master, and the reversed relations required the most training trials. These
results are consistent with those of Experiment 1. Together, results from
both experiments demonstrate that derived relational responding plays
an evident role in perspective-taking. In order to further demonstrate the
possibility that perspective-taking is generalized operant behavior, future
research should expose participants to the same protocol as was used in
Experiment 2, but also test for generalization to novel stimuli and novel
tasks, particularly in real-world social situations that require the speaker
to change his or her perspective with regards to different references of
person (Heagle & Rehfeldt, 2006).

References

BARNES-HOLMES, D., HAYES, S. C., & DYMOND, S. (2001). Self and self-
directed rules. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. T. Roche (Eds.),
Re/ational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and
cognition (pp. 119-139). New York: Plenum.
BARON-COHEN, S. (1989). The autistic child's theory of mind: A case of specific
developmental delay. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 285-
297.
BARON-COHEN, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of
mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
BARON-COHEN, S., LESLlE, A. M. & FRITH, U. (198Ei). Does the autistic child
have a "Theory of Mind"? Cognition, 21, 37-46.
BARON-COHEN, S., TAGER-FLUSBERG, H., &COHEN, D. (2000). Understanding
other minds: Perspectives form developmental cognitive neuroscience
(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DAWSON, G., & FERNALD, M. (1987). Perspective-taking ability and its
relationship to the social behavior of autistic children. Journal of Autism and
DevelopmentalDisorders, 17(4), 487-498.
DIXON, J. A., & MOORE, C. F. (1990). The developmemt of perspective taking:
Understanding differences in information and weiglhing. Child Development,
61,1502-1513.
HAYES, S. C., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & ROCHE, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational
frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of language and cognition. New
York: Plenum.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

46 REHFELDT ET AL.

HAYES, S. C., FOX, E., GIFFORD, E. V., WILSON, K. G., BARNES-HOLMES,

D., & HEALY, O. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior.
In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. T. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame
theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp.
21-49). New York: Plenum.
HAYES, S. C., & QUINONES, R. M. (2005). Characterizing relational operants.
Latinamerican Journal of Psychology, 3, 277-289.
HEAGLE, A., & REHFELDT, R. A. (2006). Teaching perspective-taking skiils to
typicaily developing children through derived relational responding. The
Journal of Intensive Early Behavioral Intervention, 3, 8-34.
KLlN, A, VOLKMAR, F. R., & SPARROW, S. (1992). Autistic social dysfunction:
Some limitations of the Theory of Mind hypothesis. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 861-876.
LEBLANC, L. A, COATES, AM., DANESHVAR, S., CHARLOP-CHRISTY, M.
H., MORRIS, C., & LANCASTER, B. M. (2003). Using video modeling and
reinforcement to teach perspective-taking skiils to children with autism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36,253-257.
MCHUGH, L., BARNES-HOLMES, Y., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (2004).
Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The
Psychological Record, 54, 115-144.
PREMACK, D., & WOODRUFF, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a 'theory
of mind'? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515-526.
RUTTER, M., BAILEY, A, & LORD, C. (2004). SCQ: Social Communication
Questionnaire. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles, CA
SPARROW, S., BALLA, D., & CICCHETTI, D. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior
Scales (Surveyed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
TAYLOR, M., CARTWRIGHT, B. S., & BOWDEN, T. (1991). Perspective Taking
and Theory of Mind: Do children predict interpretive diversity as a function of
differences in observers' knowledge? Child Development, 62, 1334-1351.
WIMMER, H., & PERNER, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and
constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of
deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103-128.

Appendix 1

Percentage of Trials Correct per Training Session for CY

Simple Relations Reversed Relations Double Reversed
Relations
Session I-You Here·There Now-Then I-You Here-There Now-Then I-You/ Here-There
Here·There Now-Then
1 100 100 100 100 92 94 50 56
2 100 67 88 100 100
3 100 92 100
4 100 92 100
5 100 100 100
6 100 75 81
7 100 92 100
8 100 100 94
9 100 100 100
10 100 100 100
11 100 100 100
Note. Scores are shown separately for each frame for each relational task.
Licensed to Taina - [email protected] - 473.566.888-83

RELATIONAL LEARNING DEFICITS IN PERPSECTIVE-TAKING 47

Appendix 2
Percentage of Trials Correct per Training Session for AS
Simple Relations Reversed Relations Double Reversed
Relations
Session I-You Here-There Now-Then I-You Here-There Now-Then I-Youl Here-There
Here-There Now-Then
1 100 50 75 63 33 31 0 33
2 50 100 25 63 67 38 100 100
3 100 100 100 50 58 38
4 100 100 75 50 58 56
5 100 100 100 75 58 56
6 63 67 38
7 88 67 50
8 100 50 56
9 100 67 63
10 63 50 56
11 88 83 69
12 75 58 69
13 63 50 69
14 75 42 69
15 75 33 81
16 63 50 88
17 88 75 81
18 50 58 94
19 75 75 75
20 63 67 75
21 75 58 94
22 75 67 94
23 88 75 100
24 75 75 100
25 63 75 94
26 88 75 94
27 75 75 94
28 88 75 94
29 75 50 88
30 88 83 94
31 63 92 81
32 75 83 100
33 75 67 100
34 100 58 100
35 100 75 88
36 88 58 81
37 88 67 100
38 88 75 94
39 75 83 94
40 63 83 100
41 88 83 100
Note_ Scores are shown separately for each frame for each relational task_