Advertisement

Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 129–147 | Cite as

Terrorism and Relational Frame Theory

  • Mark R. DixonEmail author
  • Simon Dymond
  • Ruth Anne Rehfeldt
  • Bryan Roche
  • Kimberly R. Zlomke
Article

Abstract

The present paper presents a conceptualization of human behavior involved in terrorism from a Relational Frame Theory perspective. Relational frame theory is a contemporary behavior analytic account of human language and cognition. This account has yielded answers to many substantial empirical and theoretical psychological questions that have puzzled psychologists for some time. We believe that relational frame theory can and does account for the behavior of terrorists, those persons affected by terrorists acts directly and indirectly, as well as the entire culture of a country at large. This paper outlines the current state of psychological affairs regarding terrorism in the United States of America, traces the evolution and application of relational frame theory, and describes the prejudices that may follow from a terrorist attack or contribute to terrorist recruitment. Implications for scientists and practitioners are also presented.

Key words

relational frame theory stimulus equivalence transfer of function terrorism terrorists 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alper, G. (2002). Up close and personal: September 11, through the lens of a psychotherapist. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 7, 251–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10811440290057657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2000). Explaining complex behavior: Two perspectives on the concept of generalized operant classes. The Psychological Record. 50, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1996). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivalence are fundamentally different: A reply to Saunders. The Psychological Record, 46, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, M. (2001). Stimulus equivalence, relaxation training and clinical anxiety. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Ulster at Coleraine, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
  6. Clayton, T. M. (1995). Changing organizational culture through relational framing. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  7. Crenshaw, M. (2000). The psychology of terrorism: An agenda for the 21 century. Political Psychology, 21, 405–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Council on American-Islamic Relations (2002). The status of Muslim civil rights in the United States: Stereotypes and civil liberties. https://doi.org/www.cair-net.org/civilrights2002/civilrights2002.doc.
  9. Deen, T. (2002, February 5). Rights: Discrimination against Muslims increases in US. Inter Press Service. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oneworld.org%2Fips2%2Fjul98%2F04_05_003.html
  10. Desforges, D. M., Lord, C. G., Ramsey, S. L., Mason, J. A., Van Leeuwen, & Lepper (1991). Effects of structured cooperative contact on changing negative attitudes toward stigmatized social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 531–544.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon, M. R., Zlomke, K. M., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (under review). Restoring Americans’ Nonequivalent Frames of Terror. An Application of Relational Frame Theory.Google Scholar
  12. Dixon, M. R., Rehfeldt, R. A., Zlomke, K. M. (under review). Exploring the development and dismantling of equivalence classes involving terrorist stimuli.Google Scholar
  13. Dougher, M. J., Auguston, E. M., 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duggal, H. S., Berezkin, G. & John, V. (2002). PTSD and TV viewing of the World Trade Center. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 494–495.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200205000-00002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1995.64-163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dymond, S. & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: The transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fazio, R. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition and Emotion,15, 115–141.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930125908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fields, L., Adams, B.J., Buffington, D.M., Yang, W., & Verhave, T. (1996). Response transfer between stimuli in generalized equivalence classes: A model for the establishment of natural kind and fuzzy subordinate categories. The Psychological Record, 46, 665–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fields, L., Adams, B.J., & Verhave, T. (1993). The effects of equivalence class structure on test performances. The Psychological Record, 43, 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fields, L., & Reeve, K. F. (2001). A methodological integration of generalized equivalence classes, natural categories, and cross-modal perception. The Psychological Record, 51, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fields, L., Reeve, K.F., Adams, B.J., & Verhave, T. (1991). Stimulus generalization and equivalence classes: A model for natural categories. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 305–312.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.55-305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Hayes, S. C. & Blackledge, J. T. (2001). Language and cognition: Constructing an alternative account within the behavioral tradition. In S. C. Hayes, D., Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp.3–20). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hayes S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Ruckstuhl, Jr., L. E. (1996). Relational frame theory and executive function. Chapter in G.R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory and executive function (pp.279–305). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes, S. C. (1992). Verbal relations, time, and suicide. In S.C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 109–120). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, S.C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K.G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  28. Hayes, S.C., Niccolls, R., Masuda, A., & Rye, A. (2002). Prejudice, terrorism and behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 9, 296–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1077-7229(02)80023-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 207–227.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kettl, P. & Bixler, E. (2002). Changes in psychotropic drug use after September 11, Psychiatric Services, 53, 1475–1476.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.53.11.1475-aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Langer, E. J., Bashner, R. S. & Chanowitz, B. (1985). Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 113–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leslie, J.C., Tierney, K., Robinson, C. P., Keenan, M., Watt, A., & Barnes, D. (1993). Differences between clinically anxious and non-anxious subjects in a stimulus equivalence training task involving threat words. The Psychological Record, 43, 153–162.Google Scholar
  33. Lipkens, G., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of derived stimulus relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1993.1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. LoPiccolo, J. (1994). Acceptance and broad spectrum treatment of paraphilias. In S.C. Hayes, N.S. Jacobson, V.M. Follette, & M.J. Dougher (Eds.), Acceptance and change: Content and context in psychotherapy (pp. 149–170). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  35. Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808–817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B, & Smeets, P. M. (in press). Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding. The Psychological Record.Google Scholar
  37. O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Smeets, P. (2002). Response latencies to multiple derived stimulus relations: Testing two predictions of Relational Frame Theory. The Psychological Record, 52, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of terror. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Purdon, C. (1999). Thought suppression and psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 1029–1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967r98W0200-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rehfeldt, R.A. (2003). Establishing contextual control over generalized equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 53, 415–428Google Scholar
  41. Rehfeldt, R.A., & Hayes, L.J. (2000). The long-term retention of generalized equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 405–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rehfeldt, R.A., & Root, S. (in press) The Generalization and retention of equivalence relations in adults with mental retardation. The Psychological Record.Google Scholar
  43. Rehfeldt, R.A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003). Observational learning and the formation of classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 333–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(03)00059-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1996). Arbitrarily applicable relational responding and sexual categorization: A critical test of the derived difference relation. The Psychological Record, 46, 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab. 1997.67-275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control over the derived transformation of discriminative and sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50, 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Hayes, S. C. (2001). Social processes. In S. C. Hayes, D., Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. (pp. 197–209). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  48. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Stewart, I., & O’Hora, D. (2002). Relational frame theory: A new paradigm for the analysis of social behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swarthyhuy (2002, April 7). Muslims in US face more discrimination after 9/11 {Msg 1}. Message posted to https://doi.org/www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/675654/posts.
  50. Sherif, M. (1961). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195, 54–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanl 156-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, J., Hood, William, & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: UniversityBook Exchange.Google Scholar
  52. Sidman, M., (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes, in T. Thompson &M.E. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and Integration of Behavioral Units, (pp. 213–245).Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (1999). Covering up what can’t be seen: Concealable stigma and mental control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 474–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Staats, A.W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 87–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steele, D. L., and Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.56-519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor, M. (1988). The terrorist. London: Brasseys.Google Scholar
  57. Thobaben, M. (2002). The aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001: Posttraumatic stress disorder. Home Health Care Management and Practice, 45, 398–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1084822302014005016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watt, A., Keenan, M., Barnes, D., & Cairns, E. (1991). Social categorization and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 41, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wegner, D. M. (1994). White bears and other unwanted thoughts. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  60. Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S., III, & White, L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 409–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.l.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson, K. G., Hayes, S. C., Gregg, J. & Zettle, R. D. ( 2001). Psychopathology and psychotherapy. In S. C. Hayes, D., Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. (pp. 211–238). New York: Plenum Press.3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Behaviorists for Social Responsibility 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark R. Dixon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simon Dymond
    • 2
  • Ruth Anne Rehfeldt
    • 3
  • Bryan Roche
    • 4
  • Kimberly R. Zlomke
    • 5
  1. 1.Behavior Analysis and Therapy Program, Rehabilitation InstituteSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.Anglia Polytechnic UniversityCambridgeUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Southern Illinois UniversityUnited States of America
  4. 4.National University of IrelandIreland
  5. 5.Southern Illinois UniversityUnited States of America

Personalised recommendations