Abstract
We tested an alternative explanation of RFT studies on relational frames of opposition, based on contextual control over equivalence and exclusion responding. In phase 1, four college students learned to match identical stimuli with Same as context, and most different stimuli with Opposite as context. In phase 2, the four participants formed two equivalence classes, and matched same-class stimuli with Same present and separate-class stimuli with Opposite present. In phase 3, participants learned to match B1 to A1 and C1 to A1 with Same present, and B2 to A1 and C2 to A1 with Opposite present. Then, the four participants matched C2 to B2 with Same present on tests. In phase 4, participants learned to match B1 to A1, C1 to A1, and B2 to A2 with Same present, and C2 to A1 with Opposite present. Three participants matched C2 to B2 with Same present on tests. Exclusion responding explains the outcomes of phases 3 and 4. Combinatorial entailment of opposition relations was possible in phase 3, but not in phase 4. These results suggest that contextual control over equivalence and responding by exclusion is a viable alternative explanation of RFT studies on the opposition frame.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available in the openICPSR repository, https://openicpsr.org/openicpsr/workspace?goToPath=/openicpsr/120211
Notes
Participants were not aware of these labels.
In contrast, in studies on conditional equivalence classes, contextual stimuli were presented from the onset of training (e.g., Bush et al., 1989).
This occurs regardless of whether identity matching is an instance of generalized identity matching or reflexivity.
In this notation, Same-B1C1 means that with Same as context and B1 as sample, C1 was the correct comparison.
References
Alonso-Alvarez, B. (2019). The evidence base for the opposition frame: A reply to Stewart, Dymond, & Roche (2019). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112(3), 354–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.560
Alonso-Alvarez, B., & Perez-Gonzalez, L. A. (2017). Contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence explains apparent arbitrary applicable relational responding in accordance with sameness and opposition. Learning & Behavior, 45(3), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-017-0258-1
Alonso-Alvarez, B., & Perez-Gonzalez, L. A. (2018). Analysis of apparent demonstrations of responding in accordance with relational frames of sameness and opposition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.458
Alonso-Alvarez, B., & Perez-Gonzalez, L. A. (2021). Equivalence class analysis of responding consistent with the relational frame of opposition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 116(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.690
Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with opposite as generalized operant behavior in young children. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, 559–586.
Bennett, M., Hermans, D., Dymond, S., Vervoort, E., & Baeyens, F. (2015). From bad to worse: Symbolic equivalence and opposition in fear generalization. Cognition & Emotion, 29(6), 1137–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.973833
Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1989.51-29
de Rose, J. C., Hidalgo, M., & Vasconcellos, M. (2013). Controlling relations in baseline conditional discriminations as determinants of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 63, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.007
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(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.22-07
Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2008). Derived avoidance learning: Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with same and opposite relational frames. The Psychological Record, 58(2), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395615
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/b108413
Lynch, D. C., & Green, G. (1991). Development and crossmodal transfer of contextual control of emergent stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56(1), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.56-139
Perez, W. F., de Almeida, J. H., & de Rose, J. C. (2015). Transformation of meaning through relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 65(4), 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0138-z
Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., & Serna, R. W. (2003). Transfer of specific contextual functions to novel conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 79(3), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2003.79-395
Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Spradlin, J. E., & Saunders, K. J. (2000). Learning-set outcome in second-order conditional discriminations. The Psychological Record, 50, 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395364
Plazas, E. A., & Villamil, C. W. (2018). Formation of new stimulus equivalence classes by exclusion. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 109(2), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.322
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(3), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.67-275
Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Homes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control over the derived transformation of discriminative and sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395356
Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1992). The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1992.57-227
Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1993). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded subjects: Programming acquisition and learning set. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60(3), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1993.60-571
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127
Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56(3), 519–555. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.56-519
Stewart, I., Hooper, N., Walsh, P., O’Keefe, R., Joyce, R., & McHugh, L. (2015). Transformation of thought suppression functions via same and opposite relations. The Psychological Record, 65(2), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0113-0
Stewart, I., Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2019). Analysis of apparent demonstrations of responding in accordance with relational frames of sameness and opposition by Alonso-Alvarez and Perez-Gonzalez (2018): A rejoinder. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112(3), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.555
Stromer, R., & Osborne, J. G. (1982). Control of adolescents’ arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-329
Urcuioli, P. J. (2011). Emergent identity matching after successive matching training, I: Reflexivity or generalized identity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.96-329
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. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2004.82-177
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics Approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Long Island University Post (June 12, 2019/ Project 19/06-074).
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This manuscript is based on a thesis submitted by the second author under the supervision of the first, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Psychology at Long Island University-C.W. Post.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alonso-Alvarez, B., Wu, C. Relational Frame of Opposition or Responding by Exclusion: A Study with Same and Opposite Cues. Psychol Rec 73, 119–132 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-022-00509-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-022-00509-x