Evaluating the Evidence Base for Relational Frame Theory: a Citation Analysis Simon Dymond, Richard J

The Behavior Analyst 2010, 33, 97–117 No. 1 (Spring)

Evaluating the Evidence Base for Relational Frame Theory: A Citation Analysis Simon Dymond, Richard J. May, Anita Munnelly, and Alice E. Hoon Swansea University

Relational frame theory (RFT) is a contemporary behavior-analytic account of language and cognition. Since it was first outlined in 1985, RFT has generated considerable controversy and debate, and several claims have been made concerning its evidence base. The present study sought to evaluate the evidence base for RFT by undertaking a citation analysis and by categorizing all articles that cited RFT-related search terms. A total of 174 articles were identified between 1991 and 2008, 62 (36%) of which were empirical and 112 (64%) were nonempirical articles. Further analyses revealed that 42 (68%) of the empirical articles were classified as empirical RFT and 20 (32%) as empirical other, whereas 27 (24%) of the nonempirical articles were assigned to the nonempirical reviews category and 85 (76%) to the nonempirical conceptual category. In addition, the present findings show that the majority of empirical research on RFT has been conducted with typically developing adult populations, on the relational frame of sameness, and has tended to be published in either The Psychological Record or the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Overall, RFT has made a substantial contribution to the literature in a relatively short period of time. Key words: relational frame theory, verbal behavior, citation analysis

Relational frame theory (RFT) is a (Giurfa, Zhang, Jenett, Menzel, & contemporary behavior-analytic ac- Srinivasan, 2001; Stewart & McEl- count of language and cognition wee, 2009). Nonarbitrary relational (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, responding is said to occur when, in 2001). Stated simply, RFT contends the absence of reinforcement, an that arbitrarily applicable relational organism selects the larger of two responding, such as that seen during stimuli based on a history with tests for derived stimulus relations, is multiple stimulus sets and contexts. a key process in human verbal However, burgeoning empirical evi- behavior. To explain and investigate dence now shows that verbally able this process empirically, RFT makes humans can also learn to respond a distinction between nonarbitrary relationally to objects or events when and arbitrary forms of relational the relation is defined not by the responding. Most species can, for physical properties of the objects but instance, readily learn to select the rather by additional contextual cues larger of two stimuli from an array of (e.g., Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & different stimulus sets and across a Roche, 2001; Sidman, 1994). For number of contexts. Training in such example, consider a young child nonarbitrary relational responding is who learns that ‘‘X is taller than entirely bound by the formal, physi- Y.’’ Subsequently, he or she may cal properties of the related events when asked, ‘‘which is shorter?’’ respond ‘‘Y,’’ without any further We thank the anonymous reviewers for training. According to RFT, this their detailed and helpful comments and Dermot Barnes-Holmes for an early discus- response, which is controlled solely sion on the potential pitfalls of citation by the contextual cues ‘‘taller’’ and analysis. ‘‘shorter’’ and not by any physical Please address correspondence to Simon relations, is arbitrarily applicable Dymond, Department of Psychology, Swan- sea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 because it can be applied to any 8PP, United Kingdom (e-mail: s.o.dymond@ stimuli regardless of their physical swansea.ac.uk). properties.

97 98 SIMON DYMOND et al.

Specific kinds of arbitrarily appli- Hayes, 1989), RFT has generated cable relational responding are called considerable scholarly debate in a relational frames, and have the prop- relatively short period of time (Gross erties of mutual entailment, combi- & Fox). For instance, it has been natorial entailment, and transforma- described as ‘‘unintelligible, ambigu- tion of functions. Mutual entailment ous, opaque, and contradictory’’ refers to the derived bidirectionality (Burgos, 2003, p. 19), ‘‘obscure and of stimulus relations, such that if occasionally incoherent’’ (Burgos, Stimulus A is related to Stimulus B in 2004, p. 53), and its evidence base a specific context, then a relation as ‘‘data in search of a principle’’ between B and A is also entailed in (Palmer, 2004a). Other commenta- that context. If the relation is one of tors have asked, ‘‘Who can under- sameness or coordination (e.g., A is stand RFT?’’ (Tonneau, 2002) and the same as B), then so too is the whether RFT is ‘‘post-Skinnerian, entailed relation (i.e., B is the same as post-Skinner, or neo-Skinnerian?’’ A). However, if A is greater than B, (Ingvarsson & Morris, 2004). then B is less than A. Combinatorial Despite the misunderstandings and entailment refers to instances in which controversy that RFT has generated, two or more relations are combined the contributions that it has made to to produce a third relation. For the broader scientific literature base example, if A is greater than B and have been described by other com- B is greater than C, then A is greater mentators as ‘‘prolific, generating than C and C is less than A. scores of theoretical and empirical Transformation of stimulus functions papers in the past decade’’ (Galizio, is said to occur when the psycholog- 2003, p. 159). By 2001, the first book- ical functions of stimuli in a derived length treatment of RFT was pub- relation are transformed based on the lished (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & nature of the relation and the psy- Roche, 2001), and in 2003, Hayes, chological functions of the other Barnes-Holmes, and Roche declared members of that relation. For exam- that, ‘‘RFT is now 18 years old. It ple, if A is greater than B and A is has spawned more basic human paired with shock, then presentations operant work than almost any theory of B will evoke calm or reduced put forward during that time.’’ (2003, arousal (Dougher, Hamilton, Fink, p. 40). The source of these claims & Harrington, 2007; Dymond & about the empirical base for RFT Rehfeldt, 2000). Relational frame was not specified. However, 3 years theory contends that arbitrarily ap- later, Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, plicable relational responding gener- and Lillis (2006) claimed that ‘‘RFT ally, and the transformation of func- has become one of the most actively tions in particular, represent the key researched basic behavior analytic behavioral process in human verbal theories of human behavior, with behavior and that it is possible to over 70 empirical studies focused on define verbal events accordingly. its tenets’’ (p. 5). Again, no source Several authors have provided was provided in support of the summaries of the main tenets of statement that RFT had, in the RFT (e.g., Barnes, 1994; Gross & relatively short space of approximate- Fox, 2009; Hayes & Wilson, 1996), ly two decades, generated an evidence yet to many, the theory remains base of more than 70 empirical complex and often controversial. studies. First outlined in a presentation given The burgeoning interest generated at the annual convention of the in RFT has led to the establishment, Association for Behavior Analysis in in 2005, of a new professional orga- 1985 and published as a chapter in an nization, the Association for Contex- edited volume in 1989 (Hayes & tual Behavioral Science (ACBS). The RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 99

ACBS is an organization that has Behavior from empirical and nonem- emerged directly from RFT and pirical sources, and found that the related (e.g., acceptance and commit- majority of citations were from the ment therapy; ACT) research move- latter category (see also Dixon, ments and currently has over 2,400 Small, & Rosales, 2007; Dymond & members from 44 different countries Alonso-Alvarez, in press; Sautter & (Viladarga, Hayes, Levin, & Muto, LeBlanc, 2006). In this way, citation 2009). The ACBS Web site, which is analysis provides an approximate intended to act as a clearinghouse measure of the extent to which resource for the steady accumula- relevant key-word search terms are tion of empirical support for ACT to be found in the literature databas- and RFT from a range of domains, es. lists over 150 empirical articles ‘‘on To date, there has been no prior RFT ideas or very closely related’’ citation analysis of RFT articles. The (http://www.contextualpsychology.org/ present study, therefore, sought to rft_empirical_support). These articles undertake the first such citation range from those published in 1986 analysis by searching literature data- up to and including in press arti- bases for articles that cited search cles, and ACBS members may nom- terms related to RFT and assigning inate further articles for inclusion the subsequent articles to various on this list. A search conducted using categories. the filter ‘‘RFT: Empirical’’ on another page on the ACBS Web site METHOD (http://www.contextualpsychology.org/ Database Searches publications) lists 168 articles from 1986 to in press. The search terms relational frame Clearly, there are conflicting de- theory, relational frames,andarbi- tails surrounding the scientific evi- trarily applicable relations were indi- dence base for RFT and the grounds vidually entered into the ISI Web of on which existing claims have been Knowledge (Web of Science) and based. It follows, therefore, that an PsycINFO databases. Searches were objective assessment of the evidence conducted for articles that included base for RFT would be both salutary at least one of these key words. An and informative. Bibliometric meth- upper date limit of 2008 was em- ods, such as citation analysis, involve ployed, and the default lower date searching literature databases with limit was 1981. Therefore, the initial relevant key words to identify trends search was conducted on articles and may help to provide an objective published between 1981 and 2008 assessment of the evidence base for (inclusive). RFT. In behavior analysis, citation The results of each search were analysis has been used several times checked for duplicate hits, and a final previously to reveal various author- data set was compiled. Only journal ship trends, journal citation patterns, articles deemed relevant were includ- and current areas of research empha- ed in the final data set; that is, books, sis (e.g., Carr & Britton, 2003; book chapters, dissertation abstracts, Critchfield, 2002; Dymond & Critch- and articles deemed irrelevant or field, 2001; Dymond, O’Hora, Whe- unrelated to the search terms were lan, & O’Donovan, 2006; Marcon- excluded. This resulted in one book, Dawson, Vicars, & Miguel, 2009; six book chapters, five dissertation Northup, Vollmer, & Serrett, 1993; abstracts, and 54 unrelated articles Shabani, Carr, Petursdottir, Esch, & being excluded from the final set (the Gillet, 2004). For instance, Dymond list of excluded articles is available et al. investigated the number of from the first author). The remaining citations of Skinner’s (1957) Verbal authors’ names, article titles, sources, 100 SIMON DYMOND et al. years, and abstracts were then trans- are Dymond and Barnes’s (1995) ferred to a spreadsheet. study on transformation of functions in accordance with the relational Article Categories frames of sameness, more than, and less than, and Luciano, Becerra, and Following identification of the Valverde’s (2007) study on the role of final data set, each of the four raters multiple-exemplar training in facili- (a board-certified behavior analyst, a tating derived equivalence relations board-certified assistant behavior an- in an infant. alyst, and two masters-level trained Empirical Other articles were arti- doctoral students) consulted their cles that cited at least one of the individual spreadsheets and catego- search terms and reported original rized articles as either empirical or data but did not directly involve nonempirical. Empirical articles re- analysis of any of the defining ported original data involving the features or the specific predictions direct manipulation of at least one of RFT. Examples of articles from independent variable and measure- this category include a study by ment of at least one dependent Dymond and Barnes (1998) on the variable. An example of an empirical effects of instructions on derived article is Steele and Hayes’s (1991) transfer of functions through equiva- study on arbitrarily applicable rela- lence relations and Barnes-Holmes et tional responding in accordance with al. (2004) on behavioral and electro- sameness and opposition. Nonempir- physiological measures of semantic ical articles did not involve manipu- priming with derived equivalence lation of any independent variables relations. or measurement of any dependent The Populations parameter was a variables and reported no data. An measure based on the demographic example of a nonempirical article is information given by each study Hayes and Leonhard’s (1994) article (Dixon et al., 2007). We recorded on contrasting definitions of verbal the type and age of the samples behavior. studied. Sample types were classified Further analyses of empirical arti- as either typically or atypically devel- cles. Consistent with the approach oping. Atypically developing samples adopted by Dixon et al. (2007), we were defined ‘‘as evident in the report undertook further analyses of various of any type of label (e.g., physical, parameters of the empirical article psychological, genetic, geriatric, de- dataset. We identified the following velopmental disabilities, etc.) or other parameters: Empirical RFT, Empiri- descriptors that indicated below-av- cal Other, Populations, and Relation- erage level of functioning’’ (Dixon et al Frames. al., p. 198). Sample ages were classi- Empirical RFT articles were arti- fied as adults if the participants ages cles that cited at least one of the were reported as being 18 years or search terms, reported original data older and as children if the ages involving one or more types of reported were at 17 years or younger. relational frames, defined features of The sample types and ages parame- relational frames (i.e., mutual entail- ters produced four mutually exclusive ment, combinatorial entailment, and categories: Children Typically Devel- transformation of stimulus func- oping, Children Atypically Develop- tions), or the specific predictions of ing, Adults Typically Developing, RFT (e.g., the predicted, facilitative and Adults Atypically Developing. effects of multiple-exemplar training; Relational Frames were defined as derived relational responding as gen- specific kinds of derived relational eralized operant behavior, etc.). Ex- responding (Hayes, Fox, et al., 2001, amples of articles from this category p. 33). Only articles from the Empir- RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 101 ical RFT category were subject to TABLE 1 additional classification as belonging to one or more of the following: Interrater agreement for each category sameness, sameness and opposition, difference, comparison, temporal, Interrater Category agreement (%) and deictic. Examples of articles from this category include Steele and Empirical RFT 91.6 Empirical other 92.3 Hayes (1991) on sameness, opposi- Nonempirical reviews 88.8 tion, and difference, and Rehfeldt, Nonempirical conceptual 96.4 Dillen, Ziomek, and Kowalchuk Typically developing adults 97.9 (2007) on deictic relations. Typically developing children 91.6 Subclassification of nonempirical Atypically developing adults 100 Atypically developing children 80 articles. To further identify the con- Relational frames 100 tent addressed by nonempirical articles, we classified them as either Nonempirical Reviews or Nonempir- ical Conceptual. Nonempirical Re- views cited at least one of the search articles from the Empirical and Non- terms and were those in which either empirical categories between 1991 the book-length description of RFT and 2008. Using the default setting (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, of 1981, the first article to cite one or 2001) or another related book was more of the search terms was pub- reviewed (e.g., Hayes, Strosahl, & lished in 1991. Accordingly, the Wilson, 1999). Articles in this sub- census period was between 1991 and category include commentaries on 2008. The number of citations of target articles and authors’ replies to RFT-related search terms by Empir- commentaries and reviews. Nonem- ical and Nonempirical articles had pirical Conceptual articles cited at separated, in terms of level and trend, least one of the search terms but did by 1993, with the highest number of not systematically manipulate vari- citations coming from the Nonem- ables to change a participant’s be- pirical category. This trend continued havior (Dymond et al., 2006, p. 77). throughout the review period. Cita- tions from both categories of articles Analyses of Interrater Agreement increased in 1995, with a proportion- ately larger increase in Nonempirical Interrater agreement was defined citations, before both trends leveled as both raters assigning an article to off between 1998 and 1999. The an identical category. Percentage greatest increase in Nonempirical agreement was calculated for each citations occurred in 2001 following article category by dividing the num- publication of the edited volume on ber of agreements by the number of RFT (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & agreements plus disagreements, and Roche, 2001). Empirical citations multiplying by 100%. Overall, inter- have also increased steadily from rater agreement ranged between 80% 2000 onwards (Figure 1). and 100% (see Table 1). Of the 62 Empirical articles, 42 (68%) were classified as Empirical RESULTS RFT and 20 (32%) as Empirical A total of 174 articles were identi- Other (see Table 3). Figure 2 shows fied and included in the final data set. the cumulative number of articles Of these, 62 articles (36%) were from the Empirical RFT and Empir- assigned to the Empirical category ical Other categories. Empirical RFT and 112 (64%) to the Nonempirical articles have appeared since 1991 category (see Table 2). Figure 1 (Steele & Hayes, 1991) and have shows the cumulative number of continued to steadily increase in 102 SIMON DYMOND et al.

TABLE 2 TABLE 2 Nonempirical articles Continued

Hayes and Hayes (1992) Tonneau (2004) Hayes and Wilson (1993) Hayes (2004a) Barnes (1994) Hayes (2004b) Hayes and Leonhard (1994) Myles (2004) Stemmer (1995) McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, and Barnes- Hayes and Wilson (1995) Holmes (2004) Barnes (1996) Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, McHugh, Hayes, S.C. (1996) and Hayes (2004) Barnes and Roche (1996) White and Dougher (2004) Hayes and Wilson (1996) O’Hora and Barnes-Holmes (2004) Saunders (1996) D. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Boelens (1996) Cullinan, and Leader (2004) Lowe and Horne (1996) Hayes and Berens (2004) Barnes and Roche (1997a) D. Barnes-Holmes, Luciano, and Barnes- Barnes and Roche (1997b) Holmes (2004) Horne and Lowe (1997) D. Barnes-Holmes, Cochrane, Barnes- Leigland (1997) Holmes, Stewart, and McHugh (2004) Hineline (1997) Coyne and Wilson (2004) Hayes and Barnes (1997) Hayes and Barnes-Holmes (2004) Friman, Hayes, and Wilson (1998) Galizio (2004) Hayes, Gifford, and Hayes (1998) Ingvarsson and Morris (2004) Roche and Barnes (1998) Palmer (2004a) Pelaez and Moreno (1998) Palmer (2004b) D. Barnes-Holmes, Dymond, Roche, and Stewart and Barnes-Holmes (2004) Grey (1999) Frank (2004) D. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, and Burgos (2004) Cullinan (2000) Soriano, Martinez, and Valverde (2005) D. Barnes-Holmes and Barnes-Holmes (2000) Dymond, Roche, and Rehfeldt (2005) Dymond and Rehfeldt (2000) Hayes and Quinones (2005) Wilson and Hayes (2000) Hernandez and Garcia (2005) Moore (2000) Ciarrochi and Robb (2005) Stewart and Barnes-Holmes (2001) Hayes (2005) Wilson, O’Donohue, and Hayes (2001) Robb and Ciarrochi (2005) Y. Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, Ciarrochi, Robb, and Godsell (2005) and Roche (2001) Ellis (2005) Austin and Wilson (2001) Fletcher and Hayes (2005) Roche, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, D. Barnes-Holmes, Valverde, and Whelan Stewart, and O’Hora (2002) (2005) Dougher (2002) Dymond (2005) Michael and Malott (2003) Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, and Lillis F. Lopez and Javier (2003) (2006) Dymond, Roche, and Barnes-Holmes (2003) Kanter, Baruch, and Gaynor (2006) Roche and Barnes-Holmes (2003) Dymond, O’Hora, Whelan, and O’Donovan De Mey (2003) (2006) Strand, Barnes-Holmes, and Barnes-Holmes Bond, Hayes, and Barnes-Holmes (2006) (2003) Hayes, Bunting, Herbst, Bond, and Barnes- Malone (2003) Holmes (2006) Dixon, Dymond, Rehfeldt, Roche, and O’Hora and Maglieri (2006) Zlomke (2003) Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Spradlin (2003) Bond, and Hayes (2006) D. Barnes-Holmes and Hayes (2003) Higuera (2006) Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche (2003) Fox (2006) Burgos (2003) Winn (2006) Galizio (2003) Martinez and Soriano (2006) Garcia (2003) Jesus, Garcia, Gomez-Becerra, Chavez- Marr (2003) Brown, and Greer (2006) Osborne (2003) Blackledge (2007) McIlvane (2003) Routier (2007) Salzinger (2003) Gomez-Martin, Lopez-Rios, and Mesa- Malott (2003) Manjon (2007) Paul (2004) Mosticoni (2007) RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 103

TABLE 2 this pace was maintained until 2006, when it began to return to its Continued previous level. Nonempirical Reviews citations have also steadily appeared Hayes (2007) across the review period, but at a Holden (2007) Dixon, Small, and Rosales (2007) slower rate than Nonempirical Con- Pena-Correall (2007) ceptual citations. Not surprisingly, Neziroglu, Khemlani-Patel, and Veale (2008) the biggest increase in citations from Kanter, Busch, Weeks, and Landes (2008) Nonempirical Reviews articles oc- Hayes (2008) To¨rneke, Luciano, and Salas (2008) curred between 2002 and 2003, following publication of the edited volume on RFT. Interestingly, during number from 1994 across all years 2003 there were also no Empirical except 1999 and 2003. Empirical RFT articles published. Other articles first appeared in 1998 Analysis of the Populations stud- (Dymond & Barnes, 1998) and have ied in both categories of empirical increased over the years also, al- articles indicates that the majority of though at a slower rate. research has been conducted with Of the 112 Nonempirical articles, typically developing adult popula- 27 (24%) were assigned to the Non- tions (see Figure 3). Of the articles empirical Reviews category and 85 assigned to the population categories, (76%) to the Nonempirical Concep- 72% involved typically developing tual category. Figure 2 shows the adults, 18% typically developing chil- cumulative number of articles from dren, 3% atypically developing the Nonempirical Reviews and Non- adults, and 7% atypically developing empirical Conceptual categories. children. Nonempirical Conceptual citations Analysis of the Relational Frames have appeared since 1992 and have studied in Empirical RFT articles grown since then. The pace of their shows that sameness has been the growth increased around 2003 and most studied relational frame. The

Figure 1. The cumulative number of Empirical and Nonempirical articles per year between 1991 and 2008 that reported at least one of the search terms. 104 SIMON DYMOND et al. TABLE 3 Empirical RFT and empirical other articles

Steele and Hayes (1991) RFT Dymond and Barnes (1995) RFT Dymond and Barnes (1996) RFT Roche and Barnes (1996) RFT Roche and Barnes (1997) RFT Healy, Barnes, and Smeets (1998) RFT Dymond and Barnes (1998) Other Cullinan, Barnes-Holmes, and Smeets (2000) Other Healy, Barnes-Holmes, and Smeets (2000) RFT Augustson, Dougher, and Markham (2000) Other Roche, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Barnes-Holmes, and McGeady (2000) RFT Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, and Smeets (2001a) RFT Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, and Smeets (2001b) RFT Cullinan, Barnes-Holmes, and Smeets (2001) RFT Gomez, Barnes-Holmes, and Luciano (2001) RFT Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, and Smeets (2001) RFT Kanter, Parker, and Kohlenberg (2001) Other Luciano, Herruzo, and Barnes-Holmes (2001) Other Dougher, Perkins, Greenway, Koons, and Chiasson (2002) RFT O’Hora, Roche, Barnes-Holmes, and Smeets, (2002) RFT Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, and Smeets (2002a) Other Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, and Smeets (2002b) RFT Perez-Gonzalez and Serna (2003) Other Hayes et al. (2004) Other McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, and Barnes-Holmes (2004a) RFT O’Hora, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, and Smeets (2004) RFT Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche (2004) RFT Whelan and Barnes-Holmes (2004a) RFT Whelan and Barnes-Holmes (2004b) RFT D. Barnes-Holmes, Staunton, et al. (2004) Other Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Strand, and Friman (2004) RFT D. Barnes-Holmes, Regan, et al. (2005) RFT Dixon and Zlomke (2005) RFT Murphy, Barnes-Holmes, and Barnes-Holmes (2005) RFT Ninness et al. (2005) RFT Reilly, Whelan, and Barnes-Holmes (2005) RFT C. A. Lopez, Munoz, and Ballesteros (2005) Other Merwin and Wilson (2005) Other Minster, Jones, Elliffe, and Muthukumaraswamy (2006) Other McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, and Stewart (2006) RFT Haas and Hayes (2006) Other Whelan, Barnes-Holmes, and Dymond (2006) RFT Tonneau, Arreola, and Martinez (2006) Other Lillis and Hayes (2007) Other Berens and Hayes (2007) RFT Gomez, Lopez, Martin, Barnes-Holmes, and Barnes-Holmes (2007) RFT Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, and Rhoden (2007) RFT McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Stewart, and Dymond (2007) RFT Rehfeldt, Dillen, Ziomek, and Kowalchuk (2007) RFT Luciano, Becerra, and Valverde (2007) RFT Alos and Lora (2007) Other Perez-Gonzalez and Martinez (2007) Other Dougher, Hamilton, Fink, and Harrington (2007) RFT Paez-Blarrina et al. (2008) Other Vitale, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, and Campbell (2008) RFT Roche, Kanter, Brown, Dymond, and Fogarty (2008) RFT O’Hora et al. (2008) RFT Weinstein, Wilson, Drake, and Kellum (2008) RFT Gavin, Roche, and Ruiz (2008) Other Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, and Rhoden (2008) RFT Roche and Dymond (2008) RFT Perez-Gonzalez and Alonso-Alvarez (2008) Other RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 105

Figure 2. The cumulative number of Empirical RFT, Empirical Other, Nonempirical Reviews, and Nonempirical Conceptual articles per year from 1991 to 2008 that reported at least one of the search terms. relational frames of sameness and relational frames of temporal, same- opposition were the second most ness, and difference. popular studied and were followed An additional analysis was con- by comparison (Figure 4, top). Only ducted on the Empirical RFT articles one article has studied sameness and by identifying the journals in which difference, temporal, or the combined the articles were published. Figure 4

Figure 3. The number of articles categorized as typical or atypical adults and children. Note that the totals do not sum to the total of the Empirical RFT and Empirical Other category because articles may have contributed to more than one population subcategory. 106 SIMON DYMOND et al.

Figure 4. Top: The number of articles on specific relational frames. S 5 sameness, O 5 opposition, D 5 difference, C 5 comparison, and T 5 temporal. Bottom: The number of Empirical RFT articles published in various journals. RLdP 5 Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia; B&SI 5 Behavior & Social Issues; JABA 5 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; IJP&PT 5 International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy; JEAB 5 Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior; TPR 5 The Psychological Record.

(bottom) shows that the majority of Revista Latinoamericana de Psicolo- Empirical RFT articles were pub- gia (RLdP)andBehavior & Social lished in The Psychological Record Issues (B&SI). (TPR) and the Journal of the Exper- imental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB), DISCUSSION with three articles published in Jour- nal of Applied Behavior Analysis Within a relatively short period of (JABA), two in the International time, RFT has made a considerable Journal of Psychology & Psychologi- contribution to the empirical and cal Therapy (IJP&PT), and one in theoretical literature base. During RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 107 the 17-year review period, 36% of the and without expressive language articles that cited RFT-related search abilities was not identified by our terms were from the Empirical cate- search but is included on the ACBS gory and 64% were from the Non- list. This often-cited experiment, empirical category. The present study which showed a correlation between found that RFT has developed an language ability and success on tests evidence base of 62 empirical studies for equivalence relations, predated based on its key tenets, and that the the first publications on RFT and growth seen in nonempirical citations would probably have been assigned is partially explained by the increase to our Empirical Other category. in the number of Nonempirical Re- Given the contested nature of the views following the publication of relation between derived stimulus Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche relations and language (e.g., Horne (2001) (a trend that has since leveled & Lowe, 1996), it is reasonable to off; Figure 2). The findings also show assume that the Devany et al. article that the number of citations from is deemed supportive of RFT because Nonempirical Conceptual articles its findings are consistent with the continues to the end of the review RFT approach to this issue (i.e., that period, maintaining a long tradition there is close functional overlap of interpretation in radical behavior- between derived relational respond- ism (Burgos & Donahoe, 2000; Skin- ing and language). Another example ner, 1974). of an article that was not identified in The present findings are broadly our search was a study by Barnes and consistent with the statement that Keenan (1993) on the role of concur- RFT has generated over 70 empirical rent activities in attenuating covert studies focused on its key tenets verbal processes (e.g., counting) dur- (Hayes, Luoma, et al., 2006). Our ing fixed-interval schedules. The re- analysis identified 62 Empirical arti- lation between research on derived cles, 42 (68%) of which were assigned stimulus relations and rule-governed as Empirical RFT articles (Table 3). behavior is well known, and the It is likely that differences in the Barnes and Keenan study may be operational definition of empirical considered to have been inspired by were employed by Hayes, Luoma, et the RFT approach to rule gover- al., making it difficult to compare nance. However, it remains unclear with the present findings. It is inter- exactly how this article is deemed esting to note that our findings did supportive of RFT without also not identify several articles listed on including the majority of related the ACBS Web site as supportive of articles on early human operant RFT or from the heading ‘‘RFT: research on schedules of reinforce- Empirical.’’ This may also have been ment. related to differences in the definition Using the empirical articles listed of empirical and of being supportive in Table 3, the number of contribu- of RFT. All of these nonidentified tors to research articles on RFT may articles were published prior to 1991 be determined. Of the three editors of and concerned analyses of the deter- the book-length treatment of RFT minants of human performance on (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, tests for derived equivalence relations 2001), Dermot Barnes-Holmes con- as well as topics from the broader tributed the highest number of em- research literature on rule-governed pirical articles (32), followed by behavior and schedules of reinforce- Bryan Roche (14) and Steven Hayes ment. For instance, the article by (4). Other contributors included Devany, Hayes, and Nelson (1986) many of the three editors’ former on equivalence class formation in students, such as Yvonne Barnes- atypically developing children with Holmes (11), Simon Dymond (9), 108 SIMON DYMOND et al. and Ian Stewart (7). These findings consider the empirical and conceptu- are broadly consistent with previous al literature base of RFT in relation analyses of the most prolific authors to other, competing behavioral theo- in behavior analysis (Dymond, 2002; ries of verbal behavior (e.g., Horne & Shabani et al., 2004) and indicate that Lowe, 1996; Skinner, 1957) and the pioneers of RFT research and derived stimulus relations (e.g., their students are important contrib- Horne & Lowe, 1996; Sidman, 1994, utors to the majority of empirical 2000, 2008). However, the respective RFT articles. theories are, in many important With regards to subject popula- respects, conceptually and empirical- tions, the findings show that the ly incompatible (Barnes, 1994; Clay- majority of empirical research (72%) ton & Hayes, 1999; Sidman, 2008), has been conducted with typically making a direct comparison difficult. developing adult populations (mainly It was not the objective of the present college students), and that only a study to undertake such a compari- minority involved atypically develop- son but to objectively evaluate, for ing adults (3%) and children (7%). the first time, the evidence base for This may partly explain the low RFT. Nonetheless, a direct biblio- number of articles published in metric comparison of the contribu- JABA. Although RFT is often con- tions made by each of the theories to sidered a general theory of normal the literature may prove to be helpful language and cognition, it makes in distinguishing between each ac- clear predictions about facilitative count, and future citation analyses interventions aimed at overcom- should seek to identify the most ing language deficits in applied effective method of doing so. populations (e.g., Y. Barnes-Holmes, The main objective of the present Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2001; Y. study was to provide an objective Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & assessment of the RFT literature base Murphy, 2004; Berens & Hayes, by determining the numbers of dif- 2007; Hayes & Berens, 2004; Luciano ferent categories of articles that cited et al., 2007; O’Toole, Murphy, & at least one of the search terms Barnes-Holmes, 2009). For instance, employed in this analysis. By so one intervention, multiple-exemplar doing, and because the present au- training, has been implemented to thors are reasonably familiar with the facilitate the emergence of mutual history and development of RFT, we and combinatorial entailment in typ- anticipated identifying certain semi- ically developing infants and children nal, often-cited articles during our (Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, literature searches. As outlined in the Roche, & Smeets, 2001a, 2001b; Method section, our search terms Berens & Hayes, 2007; Luciano et were individually entered into the al., 2007) and derived manding in databases and a combined final data children with autism (Murphy, set emerged. Initially, however, the Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes, search term relational frame theory 2005). Given these initial encouraging did not identify relevant empirical applications, it remains to be seen articles such as Steele and Hayes’s whether the applied promise of such (1991) first demonstration of arbi- interventions is subject to further trarily applicable relational respond- empirical scrutiny within the domain ing in accordance with sameness, of atypical language development. opposition and difference, or Dy- Our findings indicate that RFT has mond and Barnes’s (1995) study on made a substantial contribution to the transformation of stimulus func- the literature in a short period of tions via sameness and comparison. time. In interpreting the present It was only by extending our search findings, it may be beneficial to to relational frames and arbitrarily RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 109 applicable relations that these key article in a journal is cited during a 2- studies were identified. year period (Garfield, 1972). A jour- There are several possible explana- nal’s impact factor is calculated by tions for the initial failure to identify dividing the number of current-year these articles. First, they were pub- citations by the number of articles lished at the start of, or early into, the published in that journal during the review period before sufficient publi- previous 2 years. Although impact cations on the RFT account of factor is not the only indicator of a human behavior had accrued. With- field’s vitality, it does provide an out this critical mass of literature to objective measure of a field’s schol- refer to, authors, when writing man- arly prominence and visibility (see uscripts for publication and nominat- Leydesdorff, 2009). Two of the six ing key words for inclusion in search journals we identified as outlets for databases, had few sources to refer to empirical research on RFT do not (it is the behavior of scientists, after have an impact factor (IJP&PT and all, that is measured by citation B&SI). According to the ISI Thom- analyses). Second, these empirical son-Reuters Journal Citation Reports studies were initial demonstrations (2008), the impact factors of the four of the key RFT prediction that rela- remaining journals are, TPR (0.435), tional responding may be brought JEAB (2.155), JABA (0.863), and under contextual control through a RLdP (0.435). Because a journal with history of nonarbitrary relational an impact factor lower than 1.0 is responding. As such, the studies by often considered to be low impact Steele and Hayes (1991) and Dymond (Carr & Britton, 2003), only those and Barnes (1995) should be consid- Empirical RFT articles that were ered as early empirical demonstra- published in JEAB may be consid- tions of a defining feature of RFT— ered to be high impact and likely that multiple patterns of contextually to be cited in journals outside behav- controlled arbitrarily applicable rela- ior analysis. Although the use of tional responding in accordance with metrics such as impact factor in two or more relational frames may describing publication trends in those emerge given appropriate pretrain- behavioral journals with (e.g., JABA; ing—rather than sources of empirical Piazza, 2009) and without (e.g., The support specifically designed to test a Analysis of Verbal Behavior;Peturs- theoretical prediction. dottir, Peterson, & Peters, 2009) an A final, noteworthy finding from existing impact factor is a source of the present analysis was that the ongoing debate, the present findings majority of empirical RFT articles show that with the exception of were published in TPR and JEAB articles published in JEAB, the ma- (Figure 4). Both of these journals jority of empirical articles on RFT have long histories of publishing have been published in low-impact empirical and theoretical develop- journals. ments in behavior analysis generally In conclusion, the present study and derived relational responding undertook the first citation analysis specifically, and the current findings of RFT, and our findings indicate attest to their significant role in that RFT has made a substantial developing the literature base on contribution to the literature in a RFT. It is important, however, to short period of time. A growing consider the broader impact of re- empirical evidence base is accumulat- search on RFT published in these ing support for the main tenets of and the other journals we identified RFT, and there remains a high level by comparing their relative impact of conceptual interest in the RFT factors. Impact factor is a measure of approach to topics in language and the frequency with which an average cognition. Only further research, and 110 SIMON DYMOND et al. updated analyses, will reveal whether Barnes-Holmes, D., Dymond, S., Roche, B., the intellectual promise offered by & Grey, I. (1999). Language and cognition. The Psychologist, 12, 500–504. RFT will continue to be realized. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Hayes, S. C. (2003). A reply to Galizio’s ‘‘The abstracted operant: REFERENCES A review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Lan- Alos, F. J., & Lora, M. D. (2007). Contextual guage and Cognition.’’ The Behavior Analyst, control in teaching numbers to a child with 26, 305–310. intellectual disabilities. Psicothema, 19, Barnes-Holmes, D., Luciano, C. M., & Barnes- 435–439. Holmes, Y. (2004). Introductory com- Augustson, E. M., Dougher, M. J., & Mark- ments to the series on relational frame ham, M. R. (2000). Emergence of condi- theory. International Journal of Psychology tional stimulus relations and transfer of & Psychological Therapy, 4, 177–179. respondent eliciting functions among com- Barnes-Holmes, D., Regan, D., Barnes- pound stimuli. The Psychological Record, Holmes, Y., Commins, S., Walsh, D., 50, 745–770. Stewart, I., et al. (2005). Relating derived Austin, J., & Wilson, K. G. (2001). Response- relations as a model of analogical reasoning: response relationships in organizational Reaction times and event-related potentials. behavior management. Journal of Organiza- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of tional Behavior Management, 21, 39–53. Behavior, 84, 435–451. Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and Barnes-Holmes, D., Staunton, C., Barnes- relational frame theory. The Psychological Holmes, Y., Whelan, R., Stewart, I., Com- Record, 44, 91–124. mins, S., et al. (2004). Interfacing relational Barnes, D. (1996). Naming as a technical frame theory with cognitive neuroscience: term: Sacrificing behavior analysis at the Semantic priming, the implicit association Interna- altar of popularity? Journal of the Experi- test, and event related potentials. tional Journal of Psychology & Psychological mental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 264–267. Therapy, 4, 215–240. Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). Concurrent Barnes-Holmes, D., Valverde, M. R., & activities and instructed human fixed-inter- Whelan, R. (2005). Relational frame theory val performance. Journal of the Experimen- and the experimental analysis of language tal Analysis of Behavior 59 , , 501–520. and cognition. Revista Latinoamericana de Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1996). Relational Psicologia, 37, 255–275. frame theory and stimulus equivalence are Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & fundamentally different: A reply to Saun- Cullinan, V. (2001). Education. In S. C. ders’ commentary. The Psychological Rec- Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche ord, 46, 489–507. (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skin- Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1997a). A behavior- nerian account of human language and analytic approach to behavioral reflexivity. cognition (pp. 181–195). New York: Plenum. The Psychological Record, 47, 543–572. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1997b). Relational McHugh, L., & Hayes, S. C. (2004). frame theory and the experimental analysis Relational frame theory: Some implications of human sexuality. Applied & Preventive for understanding and treating human Psychology, 6, 117–135. psychopathology. International Journal of Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, (2000). Explaining complex behavior: Two 355–375. perspectives on the concept of generalized Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & operant classes. The Psychological Record, Murphy, C. (2004). Teaching the generic 50, 251–265. skills of language and cognition: Contribu- Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & tions from relational frame theory. In D. J. Cullinan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory Moran & R. W. Malott (Eds.), Evidence- and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: A possible based educational methods (pp. 277–292). synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 69–84. London: Elsevier Science/Academic Press. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Cullinan, V., & Leader, G. Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2001a). (2004). Relational frame theory and stimu- Exemplar training and a derived transfor- lus equivalence: Conceptual and procedural mation of function in accordance with issues. International Journal of Psychology & symmetry. The Psychological Record, 51, Psychological Therapy, 4, 181–214. 287–308. Barnes-Holmes, D., Cochrane, A., Barnes- Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., & McHugh, L. Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2001b). (2004). Psychological acceptance: Experi- Exemplar training and a derived transfor- mental analyses and theoretical interpreta- mation of function in accordance with tions. International Journal of Psychology & symmetry: II. The Psychological Record, Psychological Therapy, 4, 517–530. 51, 589–603. RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 111

Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Coyne, L. W., & Wilson, K. G. (2004). The Smeets, P. M., Strand, P., & Friman, P. role of cognitive fusion in impaired parent- (2004). Establishing relational responding in ing: An RFT analysis. International Journal accordance with more-than and less-than as of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, generalized operant behavior in young 469–486. children. International Journal of Psychology Critchfield, T. S. (2002). Evaluating the & Psychological Therapy, 4, 531–558. function of applied behavior analysis: A Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hayes, S. C., Barnes- bibliometric analysis. Journal of Applied Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational Behavior Analysis, 35, 423–426. frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of Cullinan, V. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., & human language and cognition. Advances in Smeets, P. M. (2000). A precursor to the Child Development and Behavior, 28, relational evaluation procedure: Analyzing 101–138. stimulus equivalence II. The Psychological Berens, N. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Record, 50, 467–492. Arbitrarily applicable comparative rela- Cullinan, V. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., & tions: Experimental evidence for a relational Smeets, P. M. (2001). A precursor to the operant. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal- relational evaluation procedure: Searching ysis, 40, 45–71. for the contextual cues that control equiv- Blackledge, J. T. (2007). Disrupting verbal alence responding. Journal of the Experi- processes: Cognitive defusion in acceptance mental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 339–349. and commitment therapy and other mind- De Mey, H. R. A. (2003). Two psychologies: fulness-based psychotherapies. The Psycho- Cognitive versus contingency-oriented. The- logical Record, 57, 555–576. ory & Psychology, 13, 695–709. Boelens, H. (1996). Accounting for stimulus Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. equivalence: Reply to Hayes and Wilson. (1986). Equivalence class formation in The Psychological Record, 46, 237–242. language-able and language-disabled chil- Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., & Barnes-Holmes, dren. Journal of the Experimental Analysis D. (2006). Psychological flexibility, ACT, of Behavior, 46, 243–257. and organizational behavior. Journal of Dixon, M. R., Dymond, S., Rehfeldt, R. A., Organizational Behavior Management, 26, Roche, B., & Zlomke, K. R. (2003). 25–54. Terrorism and relational frame theory. Burgos, J. E. (2003). Laudable goals, interest- Behavior and Social Issues, 12, 129–147. ing experiments, unintelligible theorizing: A Dixon, M. R., Small, S. L., & Rosales, R. critical review of Relational Frame Theory. (2007). Extended analysis of empirical Behavior & Philosophy, 31, 19–45. citations with Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: Burgos, J. E. (2004). Is relational frame theory 1984–2004. The Behavior Analyst, 30, intelligible? Acta Comportamentalia, 12, 197–209. 53–73. Dixon, M. R., & Zlomke, K. M. (2005). Using Burgos, J. E., & Donahoe, J. W. (2000). the precursor to the relational evaluation Structure and function in selectionism: procedure (pREP) to establish the relational Implications for complex behavior. In J. frames of sameness, opposition, and distinc- C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experi- tion. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia, mental and applied analyses of human 37, 305–316. behavior (pp. 39–57). Reno, NV: Context Dougher, M. J. (2002). This is not B. F. Press. Skinner’s behavior analysis: A review of Carr, J. E., & Britton, L. N. (2003). Citation Hayes, Strosahl, and Wilson’s Acceptance trends of applied journals in behavioral and Commitment Therapy. Journal of Ap- psychology: 1981–2000. Journal of Applied plied Behavior Analysis, 35, 323–336. Behavior Analysis, 36, 113–117. Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., Fink, B. C., Ciarrochi, J., & Robb, H. (2005). Letting a & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of little nonverbal air into the room: Insights the discriminative and eliciting functions of from acceptance and commitment therapy: generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Part 2. Applications. Journal of Rational- Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 23, 179–197. 107–130. Dougher, M., Perkins, D. R., Greenway, D., Ciarrochi, J., Robb, H., & Godsell, C. (2005). Koons, A., & Chiasson, C. (2002). Contex- Letting a little nonverbal air into the room: tual control of equivalence-based transfor- Insights from acceptance and commitment mation of functions. Journal of the Exper- therapy: Part 1. Philosophical and theoret- imental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 63–93. ical underpinnings. Journal of Rational- Dymond, S. (2002). The next generation: Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 23, Authorship trends in the experimental 79–106. analysis of human behavior (1980–1999). Clayton, M. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1999). Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Conceptual differences in the analysis of Bulletin, 20,1–8. stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Dymond, S. (2005). Learning across the life Record, 49, 145–161. span: A review of Child and Adolescent 112 SIMON DYMOND et al.

Development: A Behavioral Systems Ap- of mindfulness. Journal of Rational-Emotive proach. Infant and Child Development, 14, & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 23, 315–336. 430–432. Fox, E. J. (2006). Clarifying functional con- Dymond, S., & Alonso-Alvarez, B. (in press). textualism: A reply to commentaries. Edu- The selective impact of Skinner’s Verbal cational Technology Research and Develop- Behavior on empirical research: A reply to ment, 54, 61–64. Schlinger (2008). The Psychological Record. Frank, A. J. (2004). Review of Relational Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A trans- Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account formation of self-discrimination response of Human Language and Cognition. Prag- functions in accordance with the arbitrarily matics & Cognition, 12, 169–177. applicable relations of sameness, more than, Friman, P. C., Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. and less than. Journal of the Experimental (1998). Why behavior analysts should study Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163–184. emotion: The example of anxiety. Journal of Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1996). A trans- Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 137–156. formation of self-discrimination response Galizio, M. (2003). The abstracted operant: A functions in accordance with the arbitrarily review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post- applicable relations of sameness and oppo- Skinnerian Account of Human Language and sition. The Psychological Record, 46, Cognition. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 271–300. 159–169. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1998). The effects Galizio, M. (2004). Relational frames: Where of prior equivalence testing and detailed do they come from? A comment on Barnes- verbal instructions on derived self-discrim- Holmes and Hayes (2003). The Behavior ination transfer: A follow-up study. The Analyst, 27, 107–112. Psychological Record, 48, 147–170. Garcia, Y. A. (2003). Relational frame theory: Dymond, S., & Critchfield, T. S. (2001). A post-Skinnerian account of human lan- Neither dark age nor renaissance: Research guage and cognition. Revista Latinoamer- and authorships trends in the experimental icana de Psicologia, 35, 99–100. analysis of human behavior (1980–1999). Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool The Behavior Analyst, 24, 241–253. in journal evaluation. Science, 178, 471–479. Dymond, S., O’Hora, D., Whelan, R., & Gavin, A., Roche, B., & Ruiz, M. R. (2008). O’Donovan, A. (2006). Citation analysis of Competing contingencies over derived rela- Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: 1984–2004. The tional responding: A behavioral model of Behavior Analyst, 29, 75–88. the implicit association test. The Psycholog- Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. (2000). Under- ical Record, 58, 427–441. standing complex behavior: The transfor- Giurfa, M., Zhang, S., Jenett, A., Menzel, R., mation of stimulus functions. The Behavior & Srinivasan, M. V. (2001). The concepts of Analyst, 23, 239–254. ‘‘sameness’’ and ‘‘difference’’ in an insect. Dymond, S., Roche, B., & Barnes-Holmes, D. Nature, 410, 930–933. (2003). The continuity strategy, human Gomez, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, behavior, and behavior analysis. The Psy- M. C. (2001). Generalized break equiva- chological Record, 53, 333–347. lence I. The Psychological Record, 51, Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., 131–150. Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2007). Trans- Gomez, S., Lopez, F., Martin, C. B., Barnes- formation of avoidance response functions Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2007). in accordance with same and opposite Exemplar training and a derived transfor- relational frames. Journal of the Experimen- mation of functions in accordance with tal Analysis of Behavior, 88, 249–262. symmetry and equivalence. The Psycholog- Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., ical Record, 57, 273–293. Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2008). Derived Gomez-Martin, S., Lopez-Rios, F., & Mesa- avoidance learning: Transformation of Manjon, H. (2007). Relational frame theo- avoidance response functions in accordance ry: Some implications for psychopathology with same and opposite relational frames. and psychotherapy. International Journal of The Psychological Record, 58, 271–288. Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 491–507. Dymond, S., Roche, B., & Rehfeldt, R. A. Gross, A., & Fox, E. J. (2009). Relational (2005). Relational frame theory and the frame theory: An overview of the contro- transformation of stimulus function. Revista versy. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, Latinoamericana de Psicologia, 37, 291–303. 87–98. Ellis, A. (2005). Can rational-emotive behav- Haas, J. R., & Hayes, S. C. (2006). When ior therapy (REBT) and acceptance and knowing you are doing well hinders perfor- commitment therapy (ACT) resolve their mance: Exploring the interaction between differences and be integrated? Journal of rules and feedback. Journal of Organization- Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior al Behavior Management, 26, 91–111. Therapy, 23, 153–168. Hayes, S. C. (1996). Developing a theory of Fletcher, L., & Hayes, S. C. (2005). Relational derived stimulus relations. Journal of the frame theory, acceptance and commitment Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, therapy, and a functional analytic definition 309–311. RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 113

Hayes, S. C. (2004a). Acceptance and com- (2001). Derived relational responding as mitment therapy, relational frame theory, learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. and the third wave of behavioral and Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Rela- cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy, 35, tional frame theory: A post-Skinnerian ac- 639–665. count of language and cognition (pp. 21–49). Hayes, S. C. (2004b). Fleeing from the New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. elephant: Language, cognition and post- Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Hayes, G. J. Skinnerian behavior analytic science. Jour- (1998). Moral behavior and the develop- nal of Organizational Behavior Management, ment of verbal regulation. The Behavior 24, 155–173. Analyst, 21, 253–279. Hayes, S. C. (2005). Stability and change in Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1989). The verbal cognitive behavior therapy: Considering the action of the listener as the basis for rule implications of ACT and RFT. Journal of governance. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule- Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies Therapy, 23, 131–151. and instructional control (pp. 153–190). New Hayes, S. C. (2007). Mindfulness from the York: Plenum. bottom up: Providing an inductive frame- Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal work for understanding mindfulness pro- relations and the evolution of behavior cesses and their application to human analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1383– suffering. Psychological Inquiry, 18,242– 1395. 248. Hayes, S. C., & Leonhard, C. (1994). An Hayes, S. C. (2008). Climbing our hills: A alternative behavior-analytic approach to beginning conversation on the comparison verbal behavior. Revista Mexicana de Psi- of acceptance and commitment therapy and cologia, 11, 69–86. traditional cognitive behavioral therapy. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Clinical Psychology-Science and Practice, Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance 15, 286–295. and commitment therapy: Model, processes Hayes, S. C., & Barnes, D. (1997). Analyzing and outcomes. Behaviour Research & Ther- derived stimulus relations requires more apy, 44, 1–25. than the concept of stimulus class. Journal Hayes, S. C., & Quinones, R. M. (2005). of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, Characterizing relational operants. Revista 235–244. Latinoamericana de Psicologia, 37(2), 277– Hayes, S. C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). 289. Relational operants: Processes and implica- Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. tions: A response to Palmer’s review of Acceptance and commitment therapy: relational frame theory. Journal of the (1999). Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, An experiential approach to behavior change. 213–224. New York: Guilford. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., Wilson, K. G., (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., post-Skinnerian account of human language et al. (2004). Measuring experiential avoid- and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academ- ance: A preliminary test of a working ic/Plenum. model. The Psychological Record, 54, Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. 553–578. (2003). Behavior analysis, relational frame Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1993). Some theory, and the challenge of human lan- applied implications of a contemporary guage and cognition: A reply to the behavior-analytic account of verbal events. commentaries on Relational Frame Theory: The Behavior Analyst, 16, 283–301. A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Lan- Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1995). The role guage and Cognition. The Analysis of Verbal of cognition in complex human behavior: A Behavior, 19, 39–54. contextualistic perspective. Journal of Be- Hayes, S. C., & Berens, N. M. (2004). Why havior Therapy and Experimental Psychia- relational frame theory alters the relation- try, 26, 241–248. ship between basic and applied behavioral Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1996). psychology. International Journal of Psy- Criticisms of relational frame theory: Impli- chology & Psychological Therapy, 4, cations for a behavior analytic account of 341–353. derived stimulus relations. The Psychologi- Hayes, S. C., Bunting, K., Herbst, S., Bond, F. cal Record, 46, 221–236. W., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2006). Expand- Healy, O., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1998). ing the scope of organizational behavior Derived relational responding as an oper- management: Relational frame theory and ant: The effects of between-session feed- the experimental analysis of complex human back. The Psychological Record, 48, behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav- 511–536. ior Management, 26, 1–23. Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, M. (2000). Derived relational responding as K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. generalized operant behavior. Journal of the 114 SIMON DYMOND et al.

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, Lopez, C. A., Munoz, A., & Ballesteros, B. P. 207–227. (2005). Changing socio-verbal context in Hernandez, A., & Garcia, Y. A. (2005). women at risk of developing alimentary Preliminary considerations to the study of problems: A relational frame approach. relational frames. Revista Latinoamericana Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia, 37, de Psicologia, 37, 243–254. 359–378. Higuera, J. A. G. (2006). Acceptance and Lopez, F., & Javier, C. (2003). Private events: commitment therapy (ACT) as a cognitive A conceptual reconstruction. Apuntes de behavioral therapy (CBT) development. Psicologia, 21, 157–176. Revista de Psicologia y Psicopedagogia, 5, Lowe, C. F., & Horne, P. J. (1996). Reflec- 287–304. tions on naming and other symbolic behav- Hineline, P. N. (1997). How, then, shall we ior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of characterize this elephant? Journal of the Behavior, 65, 315–353. Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, Luciano, M. C., Becerra, I. G., & Valverde, 297–300. M. R. (2007). The role of multiple-exemplar Holden, B. (2007). Acceptance and commit- training and naming in establishing derived ment therapy: A behavior analytic psycho- equivalence in an infant. Journal of the therapy. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforen- Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, ing, 44, 1118–1126. 349–365. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the Luciano, M. C., Herruzo, J., & Barnes- origins of naming and other symbolic Holmes, D. (2001). Generalization of say- behavior. Journal of the Experimental Anal- do correspondence. The Psychological Rec- ysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241. ord, 51, 111–130. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1997). Toward a Malone, J. C. (2003). Advances in behavior- theory of verbal behavior. Journal of the ism: It’s not what it used to be. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, Behavioral Education, 12, 85–89. 271–296. Malott, R. W. (2003). Behavior analysis and Ingvarsson, E. T., & Morris, E. K. (2004). linguistic productivity. The Analysis of Post-Skinnerian, post-Skinner, or neo-Skin- Verbal Behavior, 19, 11–18. nerian? Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche’s Marcon-Dawson, A., Vicars, S. M., & Miguel, Relational Frame Theory. The Psychological C. F. (2009). Publication trends in The Record, 54, 497–504. Analysis of Verbal Behavior: 1999–2008. The Jesus, M., Garcia, M., Gomez-Becerra, I., Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 123–132. Chavez-Brown, M., & Greer, D. (2006). Marr, M. J. (2003). Relational frame theory: Perspective taking and theory of the mind: A post-Skinnerian account of human lan- Conceptual and empirical issues. A comple- guage and cognition. Contemporary Psy- mentary and pragmatic proposal. Salud chology APA Review of Books, 48, 526–529. Mental, 29, 11–18. Martinez, O. G., & Soriano, C. L. (2006). A Kanter, J. W., Baruch, D. E., & Gaynor, S. T. study of pain in the perspective of verbal (2006). Acceptance and commitment thera- behavior: From the contributions of W. E. py and behavioral activation for the treat- Fordyce to relational frame theory (RFT). ment of depression: Description and com- International Journal of Clinical and Health parison. The Behavior Analyst, 29, 161–185. Psychology, 6, 169–188. Kanter, J. W., Busch, A. M., Weeks, C. E., & McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes- Landes, S. J. (2008). The nature of clinical Holmes, D. (2004a). Perspective-taking as depression: Symptoms, syndromes, and relational responding: A developmental behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 31, 1–21. 115–144. Kanter, J. W., Parker, C. R., & Kohlenberg, McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes- R. J. (2001). Finding the self: A behavioral Holmes, D. (2004b). Relational frame ac- measure and its clinical implications. Psy- count of the development of complex chotherapy, 38, 198–211. cognitive phenomena: Perspective-taking, Leigland, S. (1997). Is a new definition of false belief understanding, and deception. verbal behavior necessary in light of derived International Journal of Psychology & Psy- relational responding? The Behavior Ana- chological Therapy, 4, 303–324. lyst, 20,3–9. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes- Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation- Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2006). Under- based journal indicators adding to the standing false belief as generalized operant bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the Amer- behavior. The Psychological Record, 56, ican Society for Information Science and 341–364. Technology, 60, 1327–1336. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes- Lillis, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Applying Holmes, D., Stewart, I., & Dymond, S. acceptance, mindfulness, and values to the (2007). Deictic relational complexity and the reduction of prejudice: A pilot study. development of deception. The Psychologi- Behavior Modification, 31, 389–411. cal Record, 57, 517–531. RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 115

McIlvane, W. J. (2003). A stimulus in need of O’Hora, D., Pelaez, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., a response: A review of Relational Frame Rae, G., Robinson, K., & Chaudhary, T. Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Hu- (2008). Temporal relations and intelligence: man Language and Cognition. The Analysis Correlating relational performance with of Verbal Behavior, 19, 29–37. performance on the WAIS-II. The Psycho- Merwin, R. M., & Wilson, K. G. (2005). logical Record, 58, 569–583. Preliminary findings on the effects of self- O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., & referring and evaluative stimuli on stimulus Smeets, P. M. (2002). Response latencies to equivalence class formation. The Psycholog- multiple derived stimulus relations: Testing ical Record, 55, 561–575. two predictions of relational frame theory. Michael, J., & Malott, R. W. (2003). Michael The Psychological Record, 52, 51–75. and Malott’s dialogue on linguistic produc- Osborne, J. G. (2003). Beyond Skinner? A tivity. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post- 115–118. Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Minster, S. T., Jones, M., Elliffe, D., & Cognition. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Muthukumaraswamy, S. D. (2006). Stimu- 19, 19–27. lus equivalence: Testing Sidman’s (2000) O’Toole, C., Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis D. (2009). Teaching flexible, intelligent, and of Behavior, 85, 371–391. creative behavior. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Moore, J. (2000). Thinking about thinking Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational and feeling about feeling. The Behavior responding: Applications for learners with Analyst, 23, 45–56. autism and other developmental disabilities Mosticoni, R. (2007). Identity: The functions (pp. 353–372). Oakland, CA: Context Press/ of self. Acta Comportamentalia, 15, 71–82. New Harbinger. Murphy, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes- Paez-Blarrina, M., Luciano, M. C., Gutie´rrez- Holmes, Y. (2005). Derived manding in Martı´nez, O., Valdivia, S., Rodrı´guez-Val- children with autism: Synthesizing Skinner’s verde, M., & Ortega, J. (2008). Coping with Verbal Behavior with relational frame theo- pain in the motivational context of values: ry. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, Comparison between an acceptance-based 445–462. and a cognitive control-based protocol. Myles, S. M. (2004). Understanding and Behavior Modification, 32, 403–422. treating loss of sense of self following brain Palmer, D. C. (2004a). Data in search of a injury: A behavior analytic approach. Inter- principle: A review of Relational Frame national Journal of Psychology & Psycho- Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Hu- logical Therapy, 4, 487–504. man Language and Cognition. Journal of the Neziroglu, F., Khemlani-Patel, S., & Veale, D. Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, (2008). Social learning theory and cognitive 189–204. behavioral models of body dysmorphic Palmer, D. C. (2004b). Generic response disorder. Body Image, 5, 28–38. classes and relational frame theory: Re- Ninness, C., Rumph, R., McCuller, G., sponse to Hayes and Barnes-Holmes. Jour- Harrison, C., Ford, A. M., & Ninness, S. nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, K. (2005). A functional analytic approach 82, 225–234. to computer-interactive mathematics. Jour- Paul, H. A. (2004). Relational Frame Theory: nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 1–22. A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Lan- Northup, J., Vollmer, T. R., & Serrett, K. guage and Cognition [Review]. Cognitive and (1993). Publication trends in 25 years of the Behavioral Practice, 11, 337–339. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Jour- Pelaez, M., & Moreno, R. (1998). A taxonomy nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, of rules and their correspondence to rule- 527–537. governed behavior. Revista Mexicana de O’Hora, D., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Analisis de la Conducta, 24, 197–214. Instructional control: Developing a rela- Pena-Correall, T. E. (2007). B. F. Skinner’s tional frame analysis. International Journal Verbal Behavior: 1957–2007. Revista Lati- of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4, noamericana de Psicologia, 39, 653–661. 263–284. Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., & Alonso-Alvarez, B. O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & (2008). Common control by compound Smeets, P. M. (2004). Derived relational samples in conditional discriminations. networks and control by novel instructions: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of A possible model of generative verbal Behavior, 90, 81–101. responding. The Psychological Record, 54, Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., & Martinez, H. (2007). 437–460. Control by contextual stimuli in novel O’Hora, D., & Maglieri, K. A. (2006). Goal second-order conditional discriminations. statements and goal-directed behavior: A The Psychological Record, 57, 117–143. relational frame account of goal setting in Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., & Serna, R. W. (2003). organizations. Journal of Organizational Transfer of specific contextual functions to Behavior Management, 25, 131–170. novel conditional discriminations. Journal 116 SIMON DYMOND et al.

of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 79, Routier, C. P. (2007). Relational frame theory 395–408. (RFT) and acceptance and commitment Petursdottir, A. I., Peterson, S. P., & Peters, therapy (ACT): Emperor’s tailors or knights A. C. (2009). A quarter century of The of the Holy Grail? Acta Comportamentalia, Analysis of Verbal Behavior: An analysis of 15, 45–69. impact. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, Salzinger, K. (2003). On the verbal behavior of 109–121. Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Piazza, C. (2009, May). JABA and the impact Account of Human Language and Cognition. factor. Presentation at the annual conven- The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19,7–9. tion of the Association for Behavior Anal- Saunders, R. R. (1996). From review to ysis International, Phoenix. commentary on Roche and Barnes: Toward Rehfeldt, R., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M., & a better understanding of equivalence in the Kowalchuk, R. K. (2007). Assessing rela- context of relational frame theory. The tional learning deficits in perspective taking Psychological Record, 46, 477–487. in children with high-functioning autism Sautter, R. A., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2006). The spectrum disorder. The Psychological Rec- empirical applications of Skinner’s analysis ord, 57, 23–47. of verbal behavior with humans. The Reilly, T., Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 35–48. (2005). The effect of training structure on Shabani, D. B., Carr, J. E., Petursdottir, A. I., the latency of responses to a five-term linear Esch, B. E., & Gillet, J. N. (2004). Scholarly chain. The Psychological Record, 55, productivity in behavior analysis: The most 233–249. prolific authors and institutions from 1992 Robb, H., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Some final, to 2001. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5, gulp, ‘‘words’’ on REBT, ACT & RFT. 235–243. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and Behavior Therapy, 23, 169–173. behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1996). Arbitrarily Cooperative. applicable relational responding and sexual Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of categorization: A critical test of the derived the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, difference relation. The Psychological Rec- 127–146. ord, 46, 451–475. Sidman, M. (2008). Symmetry and equiva- Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transfor- lence relations in behavior. Cognitive Stud- mation of respondently conditioned stimu- ies, 15, 322–332. lus function in accordance with arbitrarily Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior.New applicable relations. Journal of the Experi- York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. mental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1998). The experi- London: Penguin. mental analysis of human sexual arousal: Soriano, C. L., Martinez, O. G., & Valverde, Some recent developments. The Behavior M. R. (2005). Analyzing the verbal contexts Analyst, 21, 37–52. in experiential avoidance disorder and in Roche, B., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). acceptance and commitment therapy. Re- Behavior analysis and social construction- vista Latinoamericana de Psicologia, 37, ism: Some points of contact and departure. 333–358. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 215–231. Spradlin, J. E. (2003). Alternative theories of Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., the origin of derived stimulus relations. The Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19,3–6. Contextual control over the derived trans- Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus formation of discriminative and sexual equivalence and arbitrarily applicable rela- arousal functions. The Psychological Rec- tional responding. Journal of the Experi- ord, 50, 267–291. mental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes- Stemmer, N. (1995). Do we need an alterna- Holmes, D., Stewart, I., & O’Hora, D. tive theory of verbal behavior?: A reply to (2002). Relational frame theory: A new Hayes and Wilson. The Behavior Analyst, paradigm for the analysis of social behavior. 18, 357–362. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 75–91. Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Roche, B., & Dymond, S. (2008). A transfor- Understanding metaphor: A relational mation of functions in accordance with the frame perspective. The Behavior Analyst, nonarbitrary relational properties of sexual 24, 191–199. stimuli. The Psychological Record, 58, Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). 71–94. Relational frame theory and analogical Roche, B. T., Kanter, J. W., Brown, K. R., reasoning: Empirical investigations. Inter- Dymond, S., & Fogarty, C. C. (2008). A national Journal of Psychology & Psycho- comparison of ‘‘direct’’ versus ‘‘derived’’ logical Therapy, 4, 241–262. extinction of avoidance responding. The Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes- Psychological Record, 58, 443–464. Holmes, Y., Bond, F. W., & Hayes, S. C. RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY 117

(2006). Relational frame theory and indus- Viladarga, R., Hayes, S. C., Levin, M. E., & trial/organizational psychology. Journal of Muto, T. (2009). Creating a strategy for Organizational Behavior Management, 26, progress: A contextual behavioral science 55–90. approach. The Behavior Analyst, 32, Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. 105–133. (2004). A functional-analytic model of Vitale, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes- analogy using the relational evaluation Holmes, D., & Campbell, C. (2008). Facil- procedure. The Psychological Record, 54, itating responding in accordance with the 531–552. relational frame of comparison: Systematic Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & empirical analyses. The Psychological Rec- Smeets, P. M. (2001). Generating derived ord, 58, 365–390. relational networks via the abstraction of Weinstein, J. H., Wilson, K. G., Drake, C. E., common physical properties: A possible & Kellum, K. K. (2008). A relational frame model of analogical reasoning. The Psycho- theory contribution to social categorization. logical Record, 51, 381–408. Behavior and Social Issues, 17, 40–65. Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004a). Smeets, P. M. (2002a). A functional-analytic Empirical models of formative augmenting model of analogy: A relational frame in accordance with the relations of same, analysis. Journal of the Experimental Anal- opposite, more-than and less-than. Interna- ysis of Behavior, 78, 375–396. tional Journal of Psychology & Psychological Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Therapy, 4, 285–302. Smeets, P. M. (2002b). Stimulus equivalence Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004b). and nonarbitrary relations. The Psycholog- The transformation of consequential func- ical Record, 52, 77–88. tions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of Stewart, I., & McElwee, J. (2009). Relational the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, responding and conditional discrimination 177–195. procedures: An apparent inconsistency and Whelan, R., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Dymond, clarification. The Behavior Analyst, 32, S. (2006). The transformation of consequen- 309–318. tial functions in accordance with the rela- Strand, P. S., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes- tional frames of more-than and less-than. Holmes, D. (2003). Educating the whole Journal of the Experimental Analysis of child: Implications of behaviorism as a Behavior, 86, 317–335. science of meaning. Journal of Behavioral White, E., & Dougher, M. (2004). Criticizing Education, 12, 105–117. the tendency for evolutionary psychologists Tonneau, F. (2002). Who can understand to adopt cognitive paradigms when discuss- relational frame theory? A reply to Barnes- ing language. International Journal of Psy- Holmes and Hayes. European Journal of chology & Psychological Therapy, 4, Behavior Analysis, 3, 95–102. 325–340. Tonneau, F. (2004). Relational Frame Theory: Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Why it A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Lan- is crucial to understand thinking and guage and Cognition [Review]. British Jour- feeling: An analysis and application to drug nal of Psychology, 95, 265–268. abuse. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 25–43. Tonneau, F., Arreola, F., & Martinez, A. G. Wilson, K. G., O’Donohue, W. T., & Hayes, (2006). Function transformation without S. C. (2001). Hume’s psychology, contem- reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental porary learning theory, and the problem of Analysis of Behavior, 85, 393–405. knowledge amplification. New Ideas in To¨rneke, N., Luciano, C. M., & Salas, S. V. Psychology, 19, 1–25. (2008). Rule-governed behavior and psy- Winn, W. (2006). Functional contextualism in chological problems. International Journal context: A reply to Fox. Educational Tech- of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 8, nology Research and Development, 54, 141–156. 55–59.