Reversing Time and Size: Mutual Entailment of Nonarbitrary Temporal and Magnitude Relational Responding
Responding to temporal relational statements that include the original events (e.g., A. .. B) in a reversed order (e.g., “B after A”) is less accurate and more time-consuming than responding to such statements when they retain the original order of presentation (e.g., “A before B”). The current study assessed whether this effect was limited to temporal relational responding by estimating the effect of reversal on magnitude statements (e.g., “B bigger than A”) as well as temporal statements. Participants (N = 40) completed temporal and magnitude relational judgement tasks in blocks consisting of a training phase and a testing phase. The order of relational tasks was counterbalanced across participants; participants learned the second type of relational task faster than the first. During testing, reversal of the order of stimuli in both temporal and magnitude relations reduced accuracy and increased response latencies suggesting that the reversal effect was not limited to temporal relations. The findings support the position that a general relational effect, such as mutual entailment, may underlie the increased difficulty of reversed temporal relational statements.
KeywordsRelational frame theory Relational responding Nonarbitrary relations Temporal relations Magnitude relations Sequence
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Barnes-Holmes, D., Regan, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Commins, S., Walsh, D., Stewart, I., ... Dymond, S. (2005). Relating derived relations as a model of analogical reasoning: Reaction times and event-related potentials. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84, 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2005.79-04.
- Dauer, R. M. (1983). Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics, 11(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
- Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1996). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 46(2), 271–300.Google Scholar
- Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
- Harrell, F. E. (2017). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. (R package version 4.0-3). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
- Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
- Psychology Software Tools. (2004). E-Prime (vers. 2) [computer software]. Sharpsburg: PA: Author.Google Scholar
- R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
- Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.).: UK manual. London, UK: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
- Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar