The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more-than, and less-than
Open accessAbstract
In Experiment 1, 2 experimental subjects were given pretraining of nonarbitrary relations that brought their responses under the control of four contextual stimuli; same, opposite, more than, and less than. One control subject was not exposed to this pretraining. The 2 pretrained subjects and the 3rd nonpretrained subject then received training in six arbitrary relations, the following four relations being the most critical: same/A1‐B1, same/A1‐C1, less than/A1‐B2, more than/A1‐C2. All 3 subjects were then tested for seven derived relations, the following three relations being the most important: same/B1‐C1, more than/B1‐C2, less than/B1‐B2. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the derived relations. One of the stimuli (B1) from the relational network and two novel stimuli (X1 and X2) were then used to train three different self‐discrimination responses on three complex schedules of reinforcement. That is, all 3 subjects were trained to pick X1 if they had not emitted a response, to pick B1 if they had emitted one response only, and to pick X2 if they had emitted two responses only. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the predicted transformation of self‐discrimination response functions in accordance with the relations of sameness, more than, and less than (i.e., no response, pick B2; one response only, pick C1; and two responses only, pick C2). In Experiment 2, 2 new subjects were employed, and the arbitrary relational training and testing phases were modified to control for a procedural artifact that may have contributed to the results of the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. The pattern of results support the utility of a relational frames approach to understanding derived stimulus relations.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“cognition alters the effects of other behavioral processes”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes (2006) · cites this paper as Dymond & Barnes, 1995
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.
Citations
Cites
Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-125 · Cited by 366
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Barnes D., 1994, Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory, The Psychological Record, 44, 91
- 10.1007/BF03395151 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395903 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395091 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395887 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-501 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-61 · DOI
- Barnes D., 1994, Response‐reinforcer contiguity and human performance on simple time‐based reinforcement schedules, The Psychological Record, 44, 63
- 10.1007/BF03392844 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395144 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/0376-6357(88)90033-2 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-251 · DOI
- 10.1080/14640749208401013 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395907 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-369 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395902 · DOI
- Hayes S. C., 1991, Dialogues on verbal behavior: The first international institute on verbal relations, 19
- Hayes S. C., 1987, Stimulus equivalence and the symbolic control of behavior, Revista Mexicana de Analisis de la Conducta, 13, 361
- 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-119 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03392637 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4757-0447-1_7 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-505 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-529 · DOI
- 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-519 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395901 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03395092 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 · Cited by 6,587
“…(the nickel and dime situation just mentioned) can be trained as an overarching operant in young children (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Strand, & Friman, 2004; Berens & Hayes, under submission); (2) cognition alters the effects of other behavioral processes (e.g., Dymond & Barnes, 1995).”
BackgroundRelational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition
Barnes‐Holmes, Y., Hayes, S. C., Barnes‐Holmes, D., & Roche, B. T. (2001) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-2482 · Cited by 1,975
Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition
Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2002) · Advances in Child Development and Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-2407(02)80063-5 · Cited by 389
Acceptance and commitment: Implications for prevention science
Biglan, A., Hayes, S. C., & Pistorello, J. (2008) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-008-0099-4 · Cited by 240
“…a wide variety of cognitive processes involves relational responding (Hayden et al. 2005) and, most importantly, relational responding transforms the functions of stimuli and alters other behavioral processes, such as operant conditioning or classical conditioning (e.g., Dymond and Barnes 1995).”
WHY BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS SHOULD STUDY EMOTION: THE EXAMPLE OF ANXIETY
Friman, P. C., Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1998) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-137 · Cited by 240
“…that many relations other than equivalence (e.g., greater than, less than, opposition, difference, etc.) can be learned, applied arbitrarily to stimulus events, and combined into networks of stimulus relations of almost unimaginable complexity (Dymond & Barnes, 1995, 1996; Steele & Hayes, 1991).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Dymond, S., & Barnes, D.
- Affiliations
- University College Cork (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Dymond, Simon
- ORCID
- Dymond, Simon
- Venue
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-09
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163-184
- ISSN
- 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3711
- PMC
- PMC1350108
- OpenAlex
- W2053439414
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 17.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- self-discrimination, derived stimulus relations, relational frames, arbitrary relations, sameness, more than, derived relations
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