Skip to main content

Explaining Complex Behavior: Two Perspectives on the Concept Of Generalized Operant Classes

Abstract

The concept of generalized, higher-order, or overarching operant classes has been invoked by a number of researchers when dealing with complex behavior. For example, identity matching, generalized imitation, and relational framing all rest firmly on this concept. However, if the use of the term generalized (or higher-order/overarching) is to carry any explanatory value it needs to be clearly defined. The current article examines two approaches to clarifying this definition. The first approach suggests that generalized operants may be defined in terms of the different orders of contingencies involved, relative to nongeneralized operants, but fails to specify the exact nature of these different orders of contingencies. The second approach suggests that the term generalized should be used in a nontechnical way to emphasize that certain operant classes can only be specified in purely functional terms. This nontechnical definition appears to circumvent some of the thorny problems that arise in attempting to define generalized operants in terms of different orders of contingencies. However, other issues are raised by the latter, nontechnical definition of the generalized operant when it is applied to complex human behavior. These issues are examined and are found to be largely unproblematic.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. BARNES, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.

    Google Scholar 

  3. BARNES, D. (1996). Naming as a technical term: Sacrificing behavior analysis at the altar of popularity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 264–267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. BARNES, D., & HAMPSON, P. J. (1993). Stimulus equivalence and connectionism: Implications for behavior analysis and cognitive science. The Psychological Record, 43, 617–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. BARNES, D., & HAMPSON, P. J. (1997). Connectionist models of arbitrarily applicable relational responding: A possible role for the hippocampal system. In J. W. Donahoe & V. P. Dorsel (Eds.), Neural network interpretations of cognition: Biobehavioral foundations (pp. 496–521). Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. BARNES, D., HEALY, O., & HAYES, S. C. (in press). Relational frame theory and the relational evaluation procedure: Approaching human language as derived relational responding. In J. C. Leslie & D. E. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analyses of human behavior. Reno, NV: Context Press.

  7. BARNES, D., & HOLMES, Y. (1991). Radical behaviorism, stimulus equivalence, and human cognition. The Psychological Record, 41, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. BARNES, D., & ROCHE, B. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory are fundamentally different: A reply to Saunders’ commentary. The Psychological Record, 46, 489–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. BOELENS, H. (1994). A traditional account of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 44, 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. CATANIA, A. C. (1996). On the origins of behavior structure. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 3–12). North Holland: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. CATANIA, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. GEWIRTZ, J. L., & STENGLE, K. G. (1968). Learning of generalized imitation as the basis for identification. Psychological Review, 5, 374–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. HAYES, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19–40). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. HAYES, S. C. (1994). Relational frame theory: A functional approach to verbal events. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 9–30). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. HAYES, S. C., GIFFORD, E. V., & WILSON, K. (1996). Stimulus classes and stimulus relations: Arbitrarily applicable relational responding as an operant. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 279–299). North Holland: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. HAYES, S. C., & HAYES, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the listener as the basis for rule-governance. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 153–190). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. HAYES, S. C., & WILSON, K. (1996). Criticisms of relational frame theory: Implications for derived stimulus relations. The Psychological Record, 46, 221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  19. HEALY, O., BARNES, D., & SMEETS, P. M. (1998). Derived relational responding as an operant: The effects of between-session feedback. The Psychological Record, 48, 511–536.

    Google Scholar 

  20. HORNE, P. J., & LOWE, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. LIPKENS, R., HAYES, S. C., & HAYES, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived stimulus relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. LOWE, C. F., & HORNE, P. (1996). Reflections on naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 315–340.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. LOWENKRON, B. (1998). Some logical functions of joint control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 327–354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. McILVANE, W. J., DUBE, W. V., & CALLAHAN, T. D. (1995). Attention: A behavior analytic perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 97–117). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  25. McILVANE, W. J., DUBE, W. V., KLEDARAS, J. B., IENNACO, F. M., & STODDARD, L. T. (1990). Teaching relational discrimination to individuals with mental retardation: Some problems and possible solutions. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 283–296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. NEURINGER, A. (1986). Can people behave randomly?: The role of feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. POULSON, C. L., KYMISSIS, E., REEVE, K. F., ANDREATOS, M., & REEVE, L. (1991). Generalized vocal imitation in infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 267–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. PRYOR, K. W., HAAG, R., & O’REILLY, J. (1969). The creative porpoise: Training for novel behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 653–661.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. ROCHE, B., BARNES, D., & SMEETS, P. M. (1997). Incongruous stimulus pairing and conditional discrimination training: Effects on relational responding, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 143–160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. SIDMAN, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and in practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93–114). Hove, England: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  31. SIDMAN, M. (1992). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15–27). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative, Inc., Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  33. SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. STEELE, D., & HAYES, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dermot Barnes-Holmes.

Additional information

We thank Bill McIlvane and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful and constructive comments on an earlier version of the current article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y. Explaining Complex Behavior: Two Perspectives on the Concept Of Generalized Operant Classes. Psychol Rec 50, 251–265 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395355

Download citation