Cited by 22Categorization, perception, and languageLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Relational coherence in ambiguous and unambiguous relational networks

Quinones, Jennifer L., Hayes, Steven C.·2014·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Abstract

Clinical theories often appeal to general cognitive styles in explaining psychopathology, but without describing in detail how the patterns are formed. In the present investigation, two experiments were conducted to examine how individuals respond to ambiguous relational networks. In both experiments, the participants learned two 3-stimulus networks (A1 LESS THAN B1, A1 GREATER THAN C1 and A2 GREATER THAN B2, C2 LESS THAN A2). Participants were presented with test trials to examine if they classified the combinatorial relations (B1 ↔ C1 and B2 ↔ C2) as SAME or DIFFERENT and as GREATER THAN or LESS THAN. Although the B-C combinatorial relation in Network 1 is derivable in a readily coherent way (B1 GREATER THAN C1 and thus also B1 DIFFERENT C1), in Network 2 the combinatorial relation is ambiguous. When participants were required to specify the Network 2 B-C relation as either SAME or DIFFERENT, those who chose DIFFERENT, also consistently chose B2 as either GREATER THAN or LESS THAN C2. Conversely, those who classified the B-C relation as SAME were inconsistent within themselves in choosing B2 as GREATER THAN or LESS THAN C2. In Experiment 2, nonarbitrary multiple exemplar pretraining was used to bias SAME versus DIFFERENT as a response for ambiguous combinatorial relations. In accord with the pattern seen in Experiment 1, those biased toward DIFFERENT consistently chose a comparative relation between B2 and C2 while those biased toward SAME were inconsistent in their compara…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jeab.67

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to RFT, relational coherence often functions as a conditioned reinforcer because of its importance in social communication and problem solving.

    “According to RFT, relational coherence often functions as a conditioned reinforcer due to its importance in social communication and problem-solving (Bordieri et al., 2016;Quin ˜ones & Hayes, 2014).”

    From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Quiñones & Hayes, 2014

  • A second function of thinking is maintaining relational coherence with past learning experiences.

    “A second function of thinking is maintaining relational coherence with past learning experiences (Bordieri et al., 2016;Quin ˜ones & Hayes, 2014).”

    From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Quiñones & Hayes, 2014

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 29 · Cited by 22

Authors
Quinones, J. L., & Hayes, S. C.
Affiliations
University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Corresponding author
Hayes, Steven C.
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-17
Volume
101
Issue
1
Pages
76-93
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
OpenAlex
W1826088629
Cited by
22
References
29
Citations by year
2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
relational networks, relational learning, relational coherence, cognitive style, comparative relations, history of learning
MeSH terms
Adult, Association Learning, Attention, Concept Formation, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Orientation, Problem Solving, Uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review