This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
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.
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.
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.
CHOMSKY, N. (1959). A review of Skinner’s Verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26, 58.
HARLOW, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56, 51–65.
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.
MARR, M. J. (2003). The stitching and the unstitching: What can behavior analysis have to say about creativity? The Behavior Analyst, 26, 15–27.
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.
PARTINGTON, J. W., & BAILEY, J. S. (1993). Teaching intraverbal behavior to preschool children. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 9–18.
SCHUSTERMAN, R. J., & KASTAK, D. (1993). A California sea lion (Zalophus Californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–839.
SHAHAN, T. A., & CHASE, P. N. (2002). Novelty, stimulus control, and operant variability. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 175–190.
SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
SIDMAN, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.
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.
SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
Appendix: Reviews and Rebuttals
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.
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.
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.
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.
Galizio, M. (2004). Relational frames: Where do they come from? A comment on Barnes-Holmes and Hayes (2003). The Behavior Analyst, 27, 107–112.
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.
Malott, R. W. (2003). Behavior analysis and linguistic productivity. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 11–18
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tonneau, F. (2002). Who can understand relational frame theory? A reply to Barnes-Holmes and Hayes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 3, 95–102.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper’s foretitle owes much to a discussion with Philip N. Hineline at the 2003 meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ingvarsson, E.T., Morris, E.K. Post-skinnerian, post-skinner, or neo-skinnerian? Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche’s. Psychol Rec 54, 497–504 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395488
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395488