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

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.

Language Generativity, Response Generalization, and Derived Relational Responding

“…In the case of RFT derived relational responding is explained as generalized contextually controlled patterns of responding (see Barnes, 1994;Stewart & McElwee, 2009) that are based on a history of multiple exemplar training (MET) in which the functions of the contextual cues controlling the patterns involved are established. In the case of the naming and joint control accounts, MET is invoked as a means of establishing not derived relational respond-ing itself but instead a covert mediational process (i.e., ''naming'' and ''joint control'' respectively) that is argued to give rise to derived relational responding.…”

Meaning is more than associations: relational operants and the search for derived relations in nonhumans

“…According to RFT, it may be appropriate to consider perceptual‐ and relational‐based concept learning as instances of nonarbitrarily relational responding, and associative‐based concept learning as instances of arbitrarily applicable relational responding (Dymond & Roche, ; Hayes, Barnes‐Holmes & Roche, ). Nonarbitrary relational responding involves responding based on the nonarbitrary or formal properties of the stimuli being related (e.g., such as the color or shape [perceptual similarity] of the stimuli; see Giurfa, Zhang, Jenett, Menzel, & Srinivasan, ; Stewart & McAlwee, ). On the other hand, arbitrarily applicable relational responding is “based not on any nonarbitrary or formal relations between the stimuli being related but on aspects of the context that specify the relation such that the relational response can be brought to bear on any relata regardless of their nonarbitrary properties.” (Stewart & McAlwee, p. 312).…”

Assessing and Training Comparative Relations in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…RFT offers a functionalanalytic explanation of language and cognitive phenomena (Roche, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Stewart, & O'Hora, 2002). Most species, including humans, display generalised relational responding with physical properties (e.g., identity matching, or identifying an object that is bigger or smaller than another object-this is called non-arbitrary relational responding; (Stewart & McElwee, 2009). These are relations that are based on physical properties of the stimuli that are being related.…”

“…From an RFT point of view, DRR is defined as generalised contextually controlled patterns of responding that are formed from a history of multiple exemplar training (MET), whereby functions of contextual cues control the response. MET is used as a means of establishing covert mediational processes to encourage DRR through exposure to contingencies of reinforcement (Stewart & McElwee, 2009). There is empirical evidence to suggest that MET can deliberately train framing repertoires in typically developing young children for whom they are absent (e.g., Vizcaíno-Torres et al, 2015).…”