Derived Stimulus Relations and Their Role in a Behavior-Analytic Account of Human Language and Cognition

Dermot Barnes-Holmes1, Martin Finn1, Ciara McEnteggart1, Yvonne Barnes-Holmes1
1Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Tóm tắt

This article describes how the study of derived stimulus relations has provided the basis for a behavior–analytic approach to the study of human language and cognition in purely functional–analytic terms, with a focus on basic rather than applied research. The article begins with a brief history of the early behavior–analytic approach to human language and cognition, focusing on Skinner’s (1957) text Verbal Behavior, his subsequent introduction of the concept of instructional control (Skinner, 1966), and Sidman’s (1994) seminal research on stimulus equivalence relations. The article then considers how the concept of derived stimulus relations, as conceptualized within relational frame theory (Hayes et al., 2001), allowed researchers to refine and extend the functional approach to language and cognition in multiple ways. Finally, the article considers some recent conceptual and empirical developments that highlight how the concept of derived stimulus relations continues to play a key role in the behavior–analytic study of human language and cognition, particularly implicit cognition. In general, the article aims to provide a particular perspective on how the study of derived stimulus relations has facilitated and enhanced the behavior analysis of human language and cognition, particularly over the past 25–30 years.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Barnes, D., Hegarty, N., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: a relational framing model of complex human functioning. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 57–83.

Barnes, D., Smeets, P. M., & Leader, G. (1996). New procedures for establishing emergent matching performances in children and adults: implications for stimulus equivalence. Advances in Psychology, 117, 153–171.

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.

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.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hussey, I., & Luciano, C. (2016). Relational frame theory: finding its historical and intellectual roots and reflecting upon its future development. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 115–128). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., & Boles, S. (2010). A sketch of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and the Relational Elaboration and Coherence (REC) model. The Psychological Record, 60, 527–542.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayden, E., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2008). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a response-time and event-related-potentials methodology for testing natural verbal relations: a preliminary study. The Psychological Record, 58, 497–516.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2010). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: exploring the impact of private versus public contexts and the response latency criterion on pro-white and anti-black stereotyping among white Irish individuals. The Psychological Record, 60, 57–80.

Barnes-Holmes, D., O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R. T., & Lyddy, F. (2001). Understanding and verbal regulation. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 103–117). New York: Plenum.

Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2001). Analysing relational frames: studying language and cognition in young children (unpublished doctoral thesis). Maynooth: National University of Ireland.

Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Strand, P., & Friman, P. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with more-than and less-than as generalized operant behavior in young children. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 531–558.

Bentall, R. P., Lowe, C. F., & Beasty, A. (1985). The role of verbal behavior in human learning: II. Developmental differences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 165–180.

Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: theory and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Catania, A. C., Shimoff, E., & Matthews, B. A. (1989). An experimental analysis of rule-governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 119–150). New York: Plenum.

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.

De Houwer, J. (2017). A functional-cognitive framework for cooperation between functional and cognitive researchers in the context of stimulus relations research. The Behavior Analyst. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s40614-017-0089-6.

Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., Fink, B. C., & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 179–197.

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.

Dymond, S., Roche, B., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). The continuity strategy, human behavior, and behavior analysis. The Psychological Record, 53, 333–347.

Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Hussey, I., & Graddy, J. (2016). Exploring the behavioral dynamics of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: the impact of three types of introductory rules. The Psychological Record, 66, 309–321.

Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & McEnteggart, C. (2017). Exploring the single-trial-type-dominance-effect on the IRAP: developing a Differential Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding Effects (DAARRE) model. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.

Hayes, S. C. (1984). Making sense of spirituality. Behavior, 12, 99–110.

Hayes, S. C. (1989). Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum.

Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. Reno: Context Press.

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

Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., Townsend, R. C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Thinking, problem-solving, and pragmatic verbal analysis. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 87–101). New York: Plenum.

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.

Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016a). Relational frame theory: the basic account. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 129–178). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016b). Relational frame theory: implications for the study of human language and cognition. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 179–226). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. (2012). Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: a voyage through implicit cognition research. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1, 17–38.

Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: a lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174.

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

Lowe, C. F. (1979). Determinants of human operant behavior. Advances in Analysis of Behaviour, 1, 159–192.

Lowe, C. F., Beasty, A., & Bentall, R. P. (1983). The role of verbal behavior in human learning: infant performance on fixed-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 157–164.

Luciano, C., Becerra, I. G., & Valverde, M. R. (2007). The role of multiple-exemplar training and naming in establishing derived equivalence in an infant. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 349–365.

Maloney, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Exploring the behavioral dynamics of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: the role of relational contextual cues versus relational coherence indicators as response options. The Psychological Record, 66, 395–403.

McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: a developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 115–144.

McKeel, A. N., Rowsey, K. E., Belisle, J., Dixon, M. R., & Szekely, S. (2015). Teaching complex verbal operants with the PEAK relational training system. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 241–244. doi:10.1007/s40617-015-0067-y.

Moore, J. (2009). Some thoughts on the relation between derived relational responding and verbal behavior. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 31–47.

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

Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238.

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.

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

Sidman, M. (1994). Stimulus equivalence: a research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

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. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem-solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: research, method, teaching (pp. 225–257). New York: Wiley.

Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Relational frame theory and analogical reasoning: empirical investigations. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 241–262.

Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Lipkens, R. (2001). In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 73–86). New York: Plenum.

Vahey, N. A., Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2015). A meta-analysis of criterion effects for the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) in the clinical domain. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 48, 59–65.

Vaughan, M. (1989). Rule-governed behavior in behavior analysis. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 97–118). New York: Plenum.

Weiner, H. (1969). Conditioning history and the control of human avoidance and escape responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 1039–1043.