Technical Notation as a Tool for Basic Research in Relational Frame Theory

Abstract

A core overarching aim of Relational Frame Theory (RFT) research on language and cognition is the prediction and influence of human behavior with precision, scope, and depth. However, the conceptualization and delineation of empirical investigations of higher-order language and cognition from a relational framing theoretical standpoint is a challenging task that requires a high degree of abstract reasoning and creativity. To that end, we propose using symbolic notation as seen in early RFT experimental literature as a possible functional-analytical tool to aid in the articulation of hypotheses and design of such experiments. In this article, we provide examples of aspects of cognition previously identified in RFT literature and how they can be articulated rather more concisely using technical notation than in-text illustration. We then provide a brief demonstration of the utility of notation by offering examples of several novel experiments and hypotheses in notation format. In two tables, we provide a “key” for understanding the technical notation written herein, which other basic-science researchers may decide to draw on in future. To conclude, this article is intended to be a useful resource to those who wish to carry out basic RFT research on complex language and cognition with greater technical clarity, precision, and broad scope.

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

References

  1. Alonso-Álvarez, B., & Pérez-González, L. A. (2017). Contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence explains apparent arbitrarily applicable relational responding in accordance with sameness and opposition. Learning & Behavior, 45, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13480.017.0258-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Regan, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Commins, S., Walsh, D., Stewart, I., et al. (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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hussey, I., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Foody, M. (2016). Scientific ambition: The relationship between relational frame theory and middle- level terms in acceptance and commitment therapy. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 365–382). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Finn, M., Harte, C., Leech, A., & McEnteggart. (2018). Review: Mastering the clinical conversation: Language as intervention by M. Villatte, J. L. Villatte, & S. C. Hayes. The psychological record. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0229.

  5. Binder, C., Haughton, E., & Bateman, B. (2002). Fluency: Achieving true mastery in the learning process. In Professional papers in special education (pp. 2–20). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Curry School of Special Education.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blackledge, J. T., & Drake, C. E. (2013). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Empirical and theoretical considerations. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application (pp. 219–252). Oakland: New Harbinger.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cassidy, S., Roche, B., Colbert, D., Stewart, I., & Grey, I. (2016). A relational frame skills training intervention to increase general intelligence and scholastic aptitude. Learning & Individual Differences, 47, 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & Hayes, S. C. (2011). A relational frame training intervention to raise intelligence quotients: A pilot study. The Psychological Record, 61, 173–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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. 10.1901%2Fjeab.1986.46-243.

  10. Dickins, D. W., Singh, K. D., Roberts, N., Burns, P., Downes, J. J., Jimmieson, P., & Bentall, R. P. (2001). An fMRI study of stimulus equivalence. NeuroReport, 12, 405–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Oakland: New Harbinger.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dymond, S., Roche, B., & Bennett, M. (2013). Relational frame theory and experimental psychopathology. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory & contextual behavioral science: Research and application (pp. 199–218). Oakland: New Harbinger.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2007). Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with same and opposite relational frames. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.88-249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Garcia, A. M. (2015). A connectionist approach to functional-cognitive linguistics: Spanish pronominal clitics and verb endings in relational-network terms. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 48, 197–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guinther, P. M. (2018). Contextual influence over deriving another's false beliefs using a relational triangulation perspective taking protocol (RT-PTP-M2). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110, 500–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guinther, P. M., & Dougher, M. J. (2015). The clinical relevance of stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory in influencing the behavior of verbally competent adults. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2, 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (2010). Relational knowledge: The foundation of higher cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayes, J., & Stewart, I. (2016). Comparing the effects of derived relational training and computer coding on intellectual potential in school-age children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hayes, S. C., & Barnes, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235–270.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Contextual behavioral science: Creating a science more adequate to the challenge of the human condition. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 18243–28250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leisner, M., Bleris, L., Lohmueller, J., Xie, Z., & Benenson, Y. (2010). Rationally designed logic integration of regulatory signals in mammalian cells. Nature Nanotechnology, 5, 666–670.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Malott, R. W. (2003). Behavior analysis and linguistic productivity. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 11–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McLoughlin, S., & Stewart, I. (2017). Empirical advances in studying relational networks. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McLoughlin, S., Tyndall, I., & Pereira, A. (2018). Piloting a brief relational operant training program: Analyses of response latencies and intelligence test performance. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2018.1507087.

  29. McTiernan, A., Holloway, J., Healy, O., & Hogan, M. (2015). A randomized controlled trial of the Morningside math facts curriculum on fluency, stability, endurance, and application outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Moran, L., Walsh, L., Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2015). Correlating derived relational responding with linguistic and cognitive ability in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 19, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.12.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. (2004). Derived relational networks as novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal control. The Psychological Record, 54, 437–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. O’Hora, D., Pelaez, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Rae, G., Robinson, K., & Chaudhary, T. (2008). Temporal relations and intelligence: Correlating relational performance with performance on the WAIS-III. The Psychological Record, 58, 569–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Paternò, F., Mancini, C., & Meniconi, S. (1997). ConcurTaskTrees: A diagrammatic notation for specifying task models. In Human-computer interaction INTERACT’97 (pp. 362–369). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Peltomäki, M., & Salakoski, T. (2004). Strict logical notation is not a part of the problem but a part of the solution for teaching high-school mathematics. Proceedings of Koli Calling, 116–120.

  35. Perez, W. F., Fidalgo, A. P., Kovac, R., & Nico, Y. C. (2015). The transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ramey, D., Lydon, S., Healy, O., McCoy, A., Holloway, J., & Mulhern, T. (2016). A systematic review of the effectiveness of precision teaching for individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 3, 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behaviour: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Slattery, B., & Stewart, I. (2014). Hierarchical classification as relational framing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 61–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Slattery, B., Stewart, I., & O’Hora, D. (2011). Testing for transitive class containment as a feature of hierarchical classification. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.96-243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Steele, D. L., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.56-519.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Stewart, C., Stewart, I., & Hughes, S. (2016). A contextual behavioral approach to the study of (persecutory) delusions. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2004). A functional-analytic model of analogy using the relational evaluation procedure. The Psychological Record, 54, 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2013). Language generativity, response generalization, and derived relational responding. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29, 137–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Törneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical application. Oakland: New Harbinger.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Villatte, M., Villatte, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2015). Mastering the clinical conversation: Language as intervention. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82(2), 177–195.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was not supported by any grant funding from any institution or organization.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Tyndall.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

On behalf of all the authors the corresponding author confirms that no author has a conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable as not an empirical study paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLoughlin, S., Tyndall, I., Mulhern, T. et al. Technical Notation as a Tool for Basic Research in Relational Frame Theory. Psychol Rec 69, 437–444 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00344-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Relational frame theory
  • Basic research
  • Notation
  • Experimentation
  • Precision
  • Future research