Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 39–54 | Cite as

Behavior Analysis, Relational Frame Theory, and the Challenge of Human Language and Cognition: A Reply to the Commentaries on Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition

  • Steven C. Hayes
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
  • Bryan Roche
Article

Abstract

Answers to a series of commentaries are presented and the challenge Relational Frame Theory (RFT) presents to behavior analysis is explicated. RFT is a behavior analytic theory, based on extensive behavior analytic data, which appeals only to known principles to explain arbitrarily applicable relational responding. The claim that such responding is operant must be answerable within behavior analysis. RFT has too much empirical support for the field to avoid this challenge. If the answer is “yes,” behavior analysis seems destined to enter a new era.

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, D., McCullagh, P. D., & Keenan, M. (1990). Equivalence class formation in non-hearing impaired and hearing impaired children. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 19–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, D. & Roche, B. (1996). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivalence are fundamentally different: A reply to Saunders. The Psychological Record, 46, 489–508.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes-Holmes, D., Healy, O., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Relational frame theory and the relational evaluation procedure: Approaching human language as derived relational responding. In J. C. Leslie and D. E. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 149–180). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Roche, B. (2002). The (not so) strange death of stimulus equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 35–41.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, D., Wilkinson, M., Blackman, D. E., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 101–114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrigan, P., & Sidman, M. (1992). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 183–204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Donahoe, J. W., Burgos, J. E., & Palmer, D. C (1993). A selectionist approach to reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 17–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more-than, and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163–184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes, S. C. (1987a). Upward and downward continuity: It’s time to change our strategic assumptions. Behavior Analysis, 22, 3–6.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, S. C. (1987b). Language and the incompatibility of evolutionary and psychological continuity. Behavior Analysis, 22, 49–54.Google Scholar
  14. Hayes, S. C., & Barnes, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Men-talism, behavior-behavior relations and a behavior analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 175–190.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1383–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. (1996). Criticisms of relational frame theory: Implications for a behavior analytic account of derived stimulus relations. The Psychological Record, 46, 221–236.Google Scholar
  19. Held, R., & Hein, A. (1963). Movement-produced stimulation in the development of visually guided behavior. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56, 872–876.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lionello-De-Nolf, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2002). Stimulus control topographies and tests of symmetry in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 467–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipkens, G., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of derived stimulus relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Malott, R. W. (1991). Equivalence and relational frames. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 41–44). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  25. O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2001). Response latencies to derived stimulus relations: Testing two predictions of relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 52, 51–75.Google Scholar
  26. Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sea lion (Zalophus californius) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–839.Google Scholar
  27. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  28. Sidman, M (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tonneau, F. (2001). Equivalence relations: A critical analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 1–128. (Includes commentary.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven C. Hayes
    • 1
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
    • 2
  • Bryan Roche
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology / 296University of Nevada, RenoRenoUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyNational University of Ireland, MaynoothMaynooth, Co. KildareIreland

Personalised recommendations