This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Advanced
User Guide

Save citation to file

Add to Collections

Name must be less than 100 characters
Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again

Add to My Bibliography

Unable to load your delegates due to an error
Please try again

Your saved search

Test search terms
Would you like email updates of new search results?
Saved Search Alert Radio Buttons
()

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

. 2009 Fall;32(2):309-17.
doi: 10.1007/BF03392194.

Relational responding and conditional discrimination procedures: an apparent inconsistency and clarification

Ian Stewart  1 , John McElwee
Affiliations

Affiliation

  • 1 National University of Ireland Galway.

Relational responding and conditional discrimination procedures: an apparent inconsistency and clarification

Ian Stewart et al. Behav Anal. 2009 Fall.
. 2009 Fall;32(2):309-17.
doi: 10.1007/BF03392194.

Authors

Ian Stewart  1 , John McElwee

Affiliation

  • 1 National University of Ireland Galway.

Abstract

This article discusses theoretical issues relating to an apparent terminological inconsistency between two recent studies involving relational responding. These studies employed a functionally similar protocol to establish contextual cues for arbitrarily applicable relational responding by using a nonarbitrary relational responding procedure; however, one employed the term nonarbitrary regarding this procedure, and the other used arbitrary. Both can be legitimately described as correct, but they use apparently contradictory descriptions because they focus on different aspects of the protocol; in one, the label is based on traditional conditional discrimination task nomenclature, whereas in the other, it is based on the type of relational responding being performed. The current article describes and then explains the issue. In doing so, it touches on an important topic concerning the relation between relational responding and the conditional discrimination procedure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Illustrations of typical more than…

Figure 1

Illustrations of typical more than training trials as used by Berens and Hayes…

Figure 1
Illustrations of typical more than training trials as used by Berens and Hayes (2007) (left) and Dougher et al. (2007) (right).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Barnes D, Roche B. A behavior-analytic approach to behavioral reflexivity. The Psychological Record. 1997;47:543–572.
    1. Berens N.M, Hayes S.C. Arbitrarily applicable comparative relations: Experimental evidence for a relational operant. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2007;40:45–71. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cummings W.W, Berryman R. Some data on matching behavior in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1961;4:281–284. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dougher M.J, Hamilton D.A, Fink B.C, Harrington J. Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2007;88:179–197. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hayes S.C, Barnes-Holmes D, Roche B, editors. Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum; 2001. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Springer full text link Springer Free PMC article
Cite
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.