Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 107–112 | Cite as

In response

Relational frames: where do they come from? A comment on Barnes-Holmes and Hayes (2003)
  • Mark Galizio
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D. & Hayes, S. C. (2003). A reply to Galizio’s “The Abstracted Operant: A review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition” The Behavior Analyst, 26, 305–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Galizio, M. (2003). The abstracted operant: A review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition, edited by S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, and B. Roche. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 159–169.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Hayes, S. C. (1992). Verbal relations, time and suicide. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 109–120). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hayes, S. C, Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Hayes, S. C, Blackledge, J. T, & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Language and cognition: Constructing an alternative approach within the behavioral tradition. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 3–20). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. 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. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21–50). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kastak, C. R., Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (2001). Equivalence classification by California sea lions using class-specific reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 131–158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. McIlvane, W. J. (2003). A stimulus in need of a response: A review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 29–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pilgrim, C, & Galizio, M. (2000). Stimulus equivalence and units of analysis. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 111–126). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  12. Tonneau, F. (2001a). Equivalence relations: A critical analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 1–34.Google Scholar
  13. Tonneau, F. (2001b). Equivalence relations: A reply. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 99–128.Google Scholar
  14. Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267–281.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations