Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 497–504 | Cite as

Post-skinnerian, post-skinner, or neo-skinnerian? Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche’s

Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition
  • Einar T. Ingvarsson
  • Edward K. Morris
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BAER, D. M., PETERSON, R. F., & SHERMAN, J. A. (1967). The development of imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 405–416.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. BARNES-HOLMES, D., BARNES-HOLMES, Y., & CULLINAN, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 69–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. BOWMAN, L. G., FISHER, W. W., THOMPSON, R. H., & PIAZZA, C. C. (1997). On the relation of mands and the function of destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 251–265.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. CHOMSKY, N. (1959). A review of Skinner’s Verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26, 58.Google Scholar
  5. HARLOW, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56, 51–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. MARR, M. J. (2003). The stitching and the unstitching: What can behavior analysis have to say about creativity? The Behavior Analyst, 26, 15–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. O’DONNELL, J., & SAUNDERS, K. J. (2003). Equivalence relations in individuals with language limitations and mental retardation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 131–157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. PARTINGTON, J. W., & BAILEY, J. S. (1993). Teaching intraverbal behavior to preschool children. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 9–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. SCHUSTERMAN, R. J., & KASTAK, D. (1993). A California sea lion (Zalophus Californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. SHAHAN, T. A., & CHASE, P. N. (2002). Novelty, stimulus control, and operant variability. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 175–190.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  13. SIDMAN, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. SIDMAN, M., & TAILBY, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Appendix: Reviews and Rebuttals

  1. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Hayes, S. C. (2002). Relational frame theory is a behavior analytic account: Is Tonneau’s? European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 3, 87–94.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 language and cognition.” The Behavior Analyst, 26, 305–310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgios, J. E. (2003). Laudable goals, interesting experiments, unintelligible theorizing: A critical review of Steven C. Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, and Bryan Roche’s (Eds.), Relational frame theory (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2001). Behavior and Philosophy, 31, 19–45.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Galizio, M. (2004). Relational frames: Where do they come from? A comment on Barnes-Holmes and Hayes (2003). The Behavior Analyst, 27, 107–112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. T. (2003). 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. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 39–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Malott, R. W. (2003). Behavior analysis and linguistic productivity. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 11–18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Marr, M. J. (2003). Frames and relations [review of Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition]. Contemporary Psychology, 48, 526–529.Google Scholar
  9. 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, 29–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Osborne, J. G. (2003). Beyond Skinner? A review of Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition by Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 19–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Palmer, D. C. (2004). Data in search of a principle: A review of S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes Holmes, & R. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 189–204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Salzinger, K. (2003). On the verbal behavior of Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. The Analysis of Verbal behavior, 19, 7–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Spradlin, J. (2003). Alternative theories of the origin of derived stimulus relations. A review of Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 3–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Tonneau, F. (2002). Who can understand relational frame theory? A reply to Barnes-Holmes and Hayes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 3, 95–102.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Behavioral ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations