CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Behavioral and Psychological StudiesCategorization, perception, and languageAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Response Latencies to Multiple Derived Stimulus Relations: Testing Two Predictions of Relational Frame Theory

O’Hora, Denis, Roche, Bryan, Barnes-Holmes, Dermot, Smeets, Paul M.·2002·The Psychological Record
DOI 10.1007/bf03395414
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf03395414

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Responding at the level of transitive relations is a more complex task than responding at the level of symmetrical relations and is associated with longer response latencies.

    “This observation is fully in line with previous research showing that responding at the level of transitive relations is a more complex task than responding at the level of symmetrical relations and is associated with longer response latencies (e.g., O'Hora et al., 2002; see also Reilly et al., 2005).”

    From A derived relations analysis of approach-avoidance conflict: Implications for the behavioral analysis of human anxiety (2011) · cites this paper as O'Hora et al., 2002

    The General Discussion reports that more complex More Than/Less Than probes produced longer response latencies than Same/Opposite probes. The Measures of Derived Relational Responding section also reports a difference between symmetry and transitivity probes, but does not state that transitivity had longer latencies; the paper's own experiment did not directly compare those probe types. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Previous evidence shows that during blocks of derived relations probes, response times drop rapidly across trials and asymptote rapidly towards a value of a few hundred milliseconds.

    “Previous evidence provided by O'Hora, Roche, Barnes-Holmes, and Smeets (2002); Reilly, Whelan, and Barnes-Holmes (2005); and Roche, Linehan, Ward, Dymond, and Rehfeldt (2004) shows that during blocks of derived relations probes, response times drop rapidly across trials and asymptote rapidly towards a value of a few hundred milliseconds.”

    From A derived relations analysis of approach-avoidance conflict: Implications for the behavioral analysis of human anxiety (2011) · cites this paper as O'Hora, Roche, Barnes-Holmes, and Smeets (2002)

    The Results (Experiments 1 and 2; page unavailable) report that response latencies generally decreased from the beginning to the end of derived-relations test sessions. They do not establish that the drop was rapid or that latencies rapidly asymptoted at a few hundred milliseconds. The General Discussion also says Same/Opposite latencies were low and stable from the first exposure, rather than falling rapidly. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. BARNES-HOLMES, D., HEALY, O., & HAYES, S. C. (2000). Relational frame theory and the relational evaluation procedure: Approaching human language as derived relational responding. In J. C. Leslie & D. E. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 149180). Reno, NV: Context Press.
  2. COHEN, J. D., MACWHINNEY, B., FLATT, M., & PROVOST, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25(2), 257-271.
  3. HAYES, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19-40). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M.
Affiliations
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
  • Leiden University (NL)
ORCID
Venue
The Psychological Record
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2002-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
51-75
ISSN
  • 0033-2933 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-3452
DOI
10.1007/bf03395414
OpenAlex
W189938877
Cited by
72
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
11.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Psychological Record (publishedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • OpenSIUC (Southern Illinois University Carbondale) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
relational frame theory, derived stimulus relations, response latency, matching-to-sample, contextual cues, stimulus generalization

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