Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2000 Sep;74(2):207–227. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-207

Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior.

O Healy 1, D Barnes-Holmes 1, P M Smeets 1
PMCID: PMC1284792  PMID: 11029023

Abstract

The major aim of the present study was to demonstrate that derived relational responding may be viewed as a form of generalized operant behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 subjects were divided into two conditions (2 in each condition). Using a two-comparison matching-to-sample procedure, all subjects were trained and tested for the formation of two combinatorially entailed relations. Subjects were trained and tested across multiple stimulus sets. Each set was composed of novel stimuli. Both Conditions 1 and 2 involved explicit performance-contingent feedback presented at the end of each block of test trials (i.e., delayed feedback). In Condition 1, feedback was accurate (consistent with the experimenter-designated relations) following exposure to the initial stimulus sets. When subjects' responding reached a predefined mastery criterion, the feedback then switched to inaccurate (not consistent with the experimenter-designated relations) until responding once again reached a predefined criterion. Condition 2 was similar to Condition 1, except that exposure to the initial stimulus sets was followed by inaccurate feedback and once the criterion was reached feedback switched to accurate. Once relational responding emerged and stabilized, response patterns on novel stimulus sets were controlled by the feedback delivered for previous stimulus sets. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, except that during Conditions 3 and 4 four comparison stimuli were employed during training and testing. Experiment 3 was similar to Condition 1 of Experiment 1, except that after the mastery criterion was reached for class-consistent responding, feedback alternated from accurate to inaccurate across each successive stimulus set. Experiment 4 involved two types of feedback, one type following tests for mutual entailment and the other type following tests for combinatorial entailment. Results from this experiment demonstrated that mutual and combinatorial entailment may be controlled independently by accurate and inaccurate feedback. Overall, the data support the suggestion, made by relational frame theory, that derived relational responding is a form of generalized operant behavior.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (210.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baer D. M., Peterson R. F., Sherman J. A. The development of imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Sep;10(5):405–416. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes D. Naming as a technical term: Sacrificing behavior analysis at the altar of popularity? J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):264–267. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Carrigan P. F., Sidman M. Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jul;58(1):183–204. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dymond S., Barnes D. A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Sep;64(2):163–184. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gewirtz J. L., Stingle K. G. Learning of generalized imitation as the basis for identification. Psychol Rev. 1968 Sep;75(5):374–397. doi: 10.1037/h0026378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hayes S., Barnes D. Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Sep;68(2):235–244. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Horne P. J., Lowe C. F. On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):185–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lipkens R., Hayes S. C., Hayes L. J. Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. J Exp Child Psychol. 1993 Oct;56(2):201–239. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1993.1032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McIlvane W. J., Dube W. V., Kledaras J. B., Iennaco F. M., Stoddard L. T. Teaching relational discrimination to individuals with mental retardation: some problems and possible solutions. Am J Ment Retard. 1990 Nov;95(3):283–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McIlvane W. J., Kledaras J. B., Munson L. C., King K. A., de Rose J. C., Stoddard L. T. Controlling relations in conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Sep;48(2):187–208. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pilgrim C., Chambers L., Galizio M. Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: II. Children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 May;63(3):239–254. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pilgrim C., Galizio M. Relations between baseline contingencies and equivalence probe performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Nov;54(3):213–224. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pilgrim C., Galizio M. Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 May;63(3):225–238. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Poulson C. L., Kymissis E., Reeve K. F., Andreators M., Reeve L. Generalized vocal imitation in infants. J Exp Child Psychol. 1991 Apr;51(2):267–279. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(91)90036-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pryor K. W., Haag R., O'reilly J. The creative porpoise: training for novel behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):653–661. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Roche B., Barnes D. A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 May;67(3):275–301. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.67-275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Roche B., Barnes D., Smeets P. Incongruous stimulus pairing and conditional discrimination training: effects on relational responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Sep;68(2):143–160. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Saunders R. R., Saunders K. J., Kirby K. C., Spradlin J. E. The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Sep;50(2):145–162. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sidman M., Tailby W. Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Steele D., Hayes S. C. Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Nov;56(3):519–555. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Stokes T. F., Baer D. M. An implicit technology of generalization. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Summer;10(2):349–367. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Wilson K. G., Hayes S. C. Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Nov;66(3):267–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.66-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES