CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Behavioral and Psychological StudiesCategorization, perception, and languageAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

A PRECURSOR TO THE RELATIONAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE: SEARCHING FOR THE CONTEXTUAL CUES THAT CONTROL EQUIVALENCE RESPONDING

Open access
Cullinan, Veronica A., Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot, Smeets, Paul M.·2001·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
DOI 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-339PMC PMC1284842
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The precursor to the relational evaluation procedure (pREP) is a go/no‐go successive discrimination procedure for examining stimulus equivalence. Previous research has shown that it does not readily produce equivalence responding unless some matching‐to‐sample (MTS) procedures are incorporated into the experimental sequence. Two experiments attempted to identify contextual cues that would generate equivalence responding on the pREP. Experiment 1 examined the effects of using abstract symbols or various verbal labels as response options on the pREP. Only the words same and different, when used as response options, reliably produced equivalence responding across 4 subjects. Experiment 2 examined different pretraining preparations designed to attach the functions of the words same and different to abstract symbols that could then be used as response options on the pREP. The most effective pretraining procedure involved multiple‐exemplar training during which subjects were trained to respond to abstract symbols in the presence of pairs of stimuli that were either formally the same or different. The abstract symbols were subsequently used as response options with the pREP, and all subjects reliably demonstrated equivalence responding. The findings suggest that the relations of same and different may be fundamental to equivalence responding. These findings are discussed in terms of what they suggest about the nature of the equivalence phenomenon specifically and derived relational responding more generally.

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 · 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-339

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • The REP has the advantage of allowing large numbers of stimulus relations to be trained in a short space of time using an intuitive procedure that more closely parallels the format of often well-established reading repertoires.

    “This procedure has the advantage of allowing large numbers of stimulus relations to be trained in a short space of time using an intuitive procedure that more closely parallels the format of often well-established reading repertoires.”

    From A derived relations analysis of approach-avoidance conflict: Implications for the behavioral analysis of human anxiety (2011) · cites this paper as Cullinan et al., 2001

    The Abstract describes the pREP as training a series of stimulus relations, supporting that part of the claim. The Apparatus and Setting section says subjects progressed at widely varying rates and almost all needed more than one session; it does not establish rapid training of large numbers of relations. The pREP AND EQUIVALENCE section links familiar reading exercises to the MTS format, not the pREP, so the claimed parallel with reading repertoires is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Barnes-Holmes, D., Healy, O., & Hayes, S. (2000). Re- lational frame theory and the relational evaluation procedure: Approaching human language as derived relational responding. In J. C. Leslie & D. E. Black- man (Eds.), Experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 149-180). Reno, NV: Context Press.
  2. Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stim- ulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19-40). Reno, NV: Context Press.
  3. Roche, B., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Incon- gruous stimulus pairing contingencies and condition- al discrimination training: Effects on relational re- sponding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 143-160.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cullinan, V. A., Barnes‐Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M.
Affiliations
  • National University of Ireland (IE)
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
Corresponding author
  • Cullinan, Veronica A.
  • Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot
ORCID
Barnes‐Holmes, Dermot
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-11
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
339-349
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
DOI
10.1901/jeab.2001.76-339
PMC
PMC1284842
OpenAlex
W2121063892
Cited by
31
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4135 d)
Locations
  • Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
stimulus equivalence, derived relational responding, go/no-go discrimination, successive discrimination, matching-to-sample, contextual cues, abstract symbols, verbal labels, multiple exemplar training, pre-training
MeSH terms
Adult, Cues, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male

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