The Psychological Record

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 83–98 | Cite as

Basic Properties of Coherence: Testing a Core Assumption of Relational Frame Theory

  • Michael J. Bordieri
  • Karen Kate Kellum
  • Kelly G. Wilson
  • Kerry C. Whiteman
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Relational frame theory contains a foundational assumption that coherence (i.e., making sense) is reinforcing for verbally competent humans. That is, it is assumed that humans relate ambiguous stimuli together because they have an extensive learning history where doing so resulted in both effective environmental action and socially mediated reinforcement (e.g., praise, positive attention).

Methods

This investigation tested this core assumption of relational frame theory by analyzing response patterns to ambiguous stimuli in a matching-to-sample task (Study 1) and by assessing whether participants displayed a preference toward coherent contexts in a concurrent chains preparation (Study 2).

Results

The majority of participants responded to ambiguous stimuli in ways that were internally consistent and congruent with their previous learning histories in the absence of any programmed contingencies. Many participants also displayed a preference toward contexts where coherent responding was possible, and there was a trend toward switching away in preference when it became increasingly costly to access the coherent context.

Discussion

The major theoretical contributions of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Relational frame theory Derived stimulus relations Matching to sample Concurrent chains Rule-governed behavior 

References

  1. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61–68. doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.59-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., Dymond, S., & O’Hora, D. (2001). Multiple stimulus relations and the transformation of stimulus functions. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 51–71). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  3. Chance, P. (1999). Thorndike’s puzzle boxes and the origins of the experimental analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 433–440. doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.72-433.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dougher, M. J., Auguston, E., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351. doi:10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., Fink, B. C., & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 179–197. doi:10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Doughty, A. H., Kastner, R. M., & Bismark, B. D. (2011). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations: Replication and extension. Behavioural Processes, 86, 152–155. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2010.08.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53–70. doi:10.1901/jeab.1979.31-53.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, G., & Saunders, D. (1998). Stimulus equivalence. In K. A. Latta & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 229–263). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison, R. J., & Green, G. (1990). Development of conditional and equivalence relations without differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 225–237. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-225.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, S. C. (1997). Behavior epistemology includes nonverbal knowing. In L. P. Hayes & P. M. Ghezzi (Eds.), Investigations in behavioral epistemology (pp. 35–43). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, S. C., Browstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes, L. J., Thompson, S., & Hayes, S. C. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and rule following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 275–291. doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.52-275.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. K., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119–137. doi:10.1901/jeab.1991.56-119.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  17. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110.Google Scholar
  19. Ju, W. C., & Hayes, S. C. (2008). Verbal establishing stimuli: Testing the motivative effect of stimuli in a derived relation with consequences. The Psychological Record, 58, 339–363.Google Scholar
  20. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191–206.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.63-225.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pilgrim, C., Chambers, L., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: II. Children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 239–254. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.63-239.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Plumb, J. C., Stewart, I., Dahl, J., & Lundgren, T. (2009). In search of meaning: Values in modern clinical behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 85–103.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinones, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2014). Relational coherence in ambiguous and unambiguous relational networks. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 76–93. doi:10.1002/jeab.67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Saunders, R. R., Saunders, K. J., Kirby, K. C., & Spradlin, J. E. (1988a). The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 145–162. doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-145.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Saunders, R. R., Wachter, J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1988b). Establishing auditory control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115. doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.49-95.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shimoff, A., Catania, C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Unstructured human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207–220. doi:10.1901/jeab.1981.36-207.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Shimoff, E., Matthew, B. A., & Catania, A. (1986). Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 149–157. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-149.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1971(14), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  32. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  33. Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277. doi:10.1037/h0062535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  36. Spradlin, J. E., Saunders, K. J., & Saunders, R. R. (1992). The stability of equivalence classes. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 29–42). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  37. Steele, D. L., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555. doi:10.1901/jeab.1991.56-519.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Szameitat, A. J., Rummel, J., Szameitat, D. P., & Sterr, A. (2009). Behavioral and emotional consequences of brief delays in human-computer interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 561–570. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tarbox, J., Zuckerman, C. K., Bishop, M. R., Olive, M. L., & O’Hora, D. P. (2011). Rule-governed behavior: Teaching a preliminary repertoire of rule-following to children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 125–139.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 2(4, Whole No. 8).Google Scholar
  41. Torneke, N., Luciano, C., & Salas, S. V. (2008). Rule-governed behavior and psychological problems. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8, 141–156.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, K. G., & DuFrene, T. (2008). Mindfulness for two: An acceptance and commitment therapy approach to mindfulness in psychotherapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  43. Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267–281. doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.66-267.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wray, A. M., Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., & Guinther, P. M. (2012). Examining the reinforcing properties of making sense: A preliminary investigation. The Psychological Record, 62, 599–622.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Bordieri
    • 1
  • Karen Kate Kellum
    • 2
  • Kelly G. Wilson
    • 3
  • Kerry C. Whiteman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMurray State UniversityMurrayUSA
  2. 2.Institutional Research, Effectiveness, & Planning and Department of PsychologyUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations