Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259353444

Editorial:BasicandTranslationalResearchonStimulus-StimulusRelations

ARTICLEinJOURNALOFTHEEXPERIMENTALANALYSISOFBEHAVIOR·JANUARY2014

ImpactFactor:1.48·DOI:10.1002/jeab.69·Source:PubMed

CITATION

1

DOWNLOADS

33

VIEWS

73

3AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

MichaelDougher

UniversityofNewMexico

44PUBLICATIONS730CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

GregoryMadden

UtahStateUniversity

82PUBLICATIONS2,855CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:MichaelDougher

Retrievedon:15June2015

EDITORIAL: BASIC AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH ON STIMULUS–STIMULUS RELATIONS

MICHAEL DOUGHER1, MICHAEL P. TWOHIG

2, AND GREGORY J. MADDEN2

1UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO2UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

One of the great challenges for a behavioralscience is to provide an account of emergentstimulus–stimulus relations not explained byprimary stimulus generalization. For example,the relation between the visual stimulus dog andthe sound made when someone says “dog” isoften referred to as arbitrary because the twostimuli have no point-to-point correspondence(one is a sound, the other a creature incapableof making the sound “dog”). In humans,through natural language training, these twostimuli are related (an activity) such that they mayoccasion similar responding. For example, achild suffering from a dog phobia may experi-ence an increased heart rate and jump into thearms of a parent who says, at the front door of afriend’s house, “They have a dog,” just as hewould if he saw the dog. This two-member classof arbitrarily related stimuli is expanded whenthe verbal response “perro” is related asequivalent to “dog” and, subsequently, hearing“They have a perro” elicits the same fearresponding in the dog-phobic listener.Emergent stimulus relations have been of

interest since the beginnings of experimentalpsychology (e.g., Anrep, 1923; Bass &Hull, 1934;Hull, 1939; Shipley, 1933) and since that time,an extensive taxonomy of the variety of stimu-lus–stimulus relations has been created (seeMurphy, 2002; Zentall, Galizio, & Critchfield,2002). The study of emergent relating behaviorexperienced a behavior-analytic renaissance, ofsorts, in the 1970s when Murray Sidmandropped everything else and began publishingstudies on what would come to be calledstimulus equivalence (Sidman, 1971; Sidman& Cresson, 1973; Sidman, Cresson, & Willson-Morris, 1974). As most readers know, stimuli arerelated as equivalent when following If A Then Band If A Then C training, the individual, without

further training, demonstrates that A¼A, B¼B,C¼C, B¼A, C¼A, B¼C, and C¼B, typicallyin a conditional discrimination task where thefirst symbol serves as a sample stimulus and thesecond is selected from several available com-parison stimuli (Sidman & Tailby, 1982). Substi-tuting a dog for Stimulus A, “dog” for B, and“perro” for C, reveals why this research para-digm was quickly recognized as a means bywhich a behavior-analytic approach might beapplied to the study of complex cognitivephenomena (e.g., Fields, Verhave, & Fath,1984; Sidman, 1986). That is, an approachfocused on identifying the necessary and suffi-cient conditions for producing emergent relat-ing behavior.This special issue of the Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) focuseson stimulus–stimulus relations. Understandingthe varieties of relating behavior has generatedan enormous amount of research in human andanimal laboratories and the findings havegenerated new theories that have themselvesoccasioned additional investigations. As has sooften been the case in our science, translationalresearch findings have emerged and, in somecircles, have proliferated. This special issue ofJEAB offers an opportunity to look back uponwhat we know, what we are learning today, andto consider the ongoing potential of what hasproven to be a fruitful research line. In whatfollows of this editorial, we walk that path.

Laboratory Advances in RelationalRespondingIn the 1980s and early 1990s foundational

studies were conducted (e.g., Bush, Sidman, &de Rose, 1989; Dube, McIlvane, Maguire,Mackay, & Stoddard, 1989; Hayes, Kohlenberg,& Hayes, 1991; Sidman, 1986; Sidman, Kirk, &Willson-Morris, 1985; Sidman & Tailby, 1982)and in the decades that followed importanttheoretical accounts of the origin of relatingbehavior emerged. Sidman (2000), for example,suggested that the nature of the four-term

Correspondence should be addressed to Gregory J.Madden, Utah State University, Department of Psychology,EDUC 498, Logan, UT 84322 (e-mail: greg.madden@usu.edu).doi: 10.1002/jeab.69

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 2014, 101, 1–9 NUMBER 1 (JANUARY)

1

reinforcement contingency was that context,discriminative stimulus, response, and reinforc-er could all come to function as equivalentstimuli. Sidman’s hypothesis is experimentallyexplored in this special issue of JEAB by Johnson,Meleshkevich, and Dube (2014). Their studyestablishes two 3-member equivalence classes,each with a different type of reinforcer, andthen, for the first time in the publishedliterature, uses these outcome-specific rein-forcers to merge the two classes into one 8-member equivalence class. Johnson et al. specu-late on how such mergers in natural humanenvironments could expand classes of equiva-lent stimuli in a way that could generativelyexpand the stimuli that elicit, for example,unwanted emotional responding, a topic con-sidered again later in this paper.

Understanding the origin(s) of stimulus–stimulus relating is important if we are toefficiently establish these relations in individualsfor whom they do not typically develop (e.g.,Carr, Wilkinson, Blackman & McIlvane, 2000;Maguire, Stromer, Mackay & Demis, 1994) andif we are interested in mapping the evolutionaryorigins of complex relating behavior. Theliterature review by Zentall, Wasserman, andUrcuioli (2014) in this issue provides anoverview of the extensive concept-learningresearch conducted with nonhumans, researchdesigned to explore the necessary and sufficientconditions for establishing stimulus–stimulusrelations of myriad types. The Zentall et al.review outlines representational accounts ofemergent (untrained) stimulus–stimulus relat-ing behavior, and summarizes the results offrequently ingenious experiments designed totest these accounts. The article also reviewsprocedures that have proven effective in creat-ing functional classes of stimuli and recentadvances in establishing emergent symmetricrelations (following A!B training relating B!Aemerges) in nonhumans (e.g., Frank &Wasserman, 2005; Urcuioli, 2008). The latterportion of the Zentall et al. paper makes forfascinating reading as it reveals how the relatingbehavior of the scientist arranging the experi-ment is different from that of the nonhuman inthat the latter lacks the extended learninghistory of an adult human (e.g., learning thatwhen naming an object “red” it matters notwhen, where, or what shape the red objecttakes). Researchers working from differenttheoretical orientations provide commentaries

on the Zentall et al. paper (Hughes & Barnes-Holmes, 2014; Dymond, 2014; McIlvane, 2014),and the spirited discussion concludes with areply by Urcuioli, Wasserman, and Zentall(2014).

This special issue of JEAB includes twoexperiments representing this animal-researchtradition. The paper by Campos, Urcuioli, andSwisher (2014) further investigates the emer-gent symmetric relating behavior of pigeons,asking if training identity matching (i.e., if AthenA) is a necessary condition for symmetry. Intwo experiments they provide strong evidencethat identity matching is not a necessarycondition and, in so doing, provide additionalsupport for Urcuioli’s (2008) theory of pigeons’equivalence class formation. In the Daniels,Laude, and Zentall (2014) paper, a procedure ispresented for efficiently exploring pigeons’ability to make emergent transitive inferenceswithin a series of trained A>B>C>D>E> Frelations. Transitive relating is demonstrated ontest trials in which their pigeons prefer B over D,B over E, and/or C over E; stimuli neverpreviously presented together and both ofwhich had served as Sþ and S-.

The special issue also includes a technicalarticle that will be of interest in particular tothose conducting relational research with hu-mans. Gerard, Mackay, Thompson, and McIl-vane (2014) describe computer algorithms theyhave developed for creating balanced distribu-tions of stimuli in matching-to-sample prepara-tions. These programs can facilitate theimportant task of determining when and wherestimuli will be presented so as to avoid idiosyn-cratic preferences for stimuli or position.

Relational Frame TheoryHayes and colleagues (e.g., Hayes &

Brownstein, 1984; Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle,Rosenfarb, & Korn, 1986; Wulfert & Hayes,1988) were inspired by the work of Sidman andothers (e.g., Catania, Matthews, & Shimoff,1982) whose findings shed new light on abehavioral approach to complex verbal behav-ior, including that often seen in clinical settings.Since that time, the importance and develop-ment of emergent stimulus relations for under-standing language and complex cognition havebeen extensively explored within RelationalFrame Theory (RFT; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &Roche, 2001), with much of the latter workbeing led by Dermot Barnes-Holmes and

2 MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

colleagues. This work is ever evolving andpulling in other fields of science includingevolution science.In the present issue of JEAB, the Perspectives on

Behavior article by Hayes and Sanford (2014)discusses the increasing recognition amongevolutionary biologists that learning and behav-ior are centrally important in understandingnatural selection. For example, Hayes andSanford note that behavior puts members of aspecies in contact with new environments (e.g.,the migration of man from Africa) and with newselection pressures (e.g., new pathogens, pred-ators, and prey), which, in turn, yield ontogenet-ic and phylogenetic change. The authors suggestthat evolutionary biologists are increasinglyintegrating general process learning theoriesinto their evolutionary models, while suggestingthat evolutionary processes can modify learningprocesses to the specifics of the niche. As anexample of the latter, Hayes and Sanforddevelop an argument, contrary to Skinner(1981) but in accord with Wilson (2007) thathuman cooperation preceded language, andwhen combined with building-block abilitiessuch as social referencing and perspectivetaking, prepared humans to acquire symmetricrelational learning, a fundamental componentof referential logic and what would later becomehuman language. The argument makes forinteresting reading, as does the authors’ per-spective on strategies for further integratingbehavioral research into evolution science.Beyond mutually entailed symmetry, RFT

views stimulus equivalence performance asresulting from a particular kind of learnedstimulus relation: correspondence or sameness.While correspondence is viewed as foundation-al, it is but one of a number of stimulus relations(e.g., opposition, comparative, hierarchical,causal) to which humans learn to respond.Learning to behave relationally is learning tobehave appropriately to specified or derivedrelations. For example, once a child learns thecomparative relationsmore than and less than andis then told that a dime ismore than a nickel, shewill be able to report that a nickel is less than adime. The child is not responding to thephysical properties of the dime or the nickel(in which the nickel is larger), but to thearbitrary relation between them.As noted earlier, in verbal contexts relations

among stimuli are typically arbitrarily applied;the sound “dog” does not in any way resemble a

dog, and the same is true of the symbolicrelations between words and virtually everyobject, action, or relation with which thosenames (tacts) are related as equivalent. Alearned generalized repertoire of a specificform of arbitrary relational responding (e.g.,relating object and name of object as same) isreferred to as a relational frame. Once learned, arelational frame can be arbitrarily applied to anyset of stimuli. For example, we can arbitrarilyapply a frame of comparison to any two (ormore) objects. Take a look at any two objectsand choose which one is better, more valuable,or aesthetically pleasing. The decision could bedifficult, but forced to do it, we bet you could.Now let’s say you are allowed to keep only oneobject. The relational frames in which these twoobjects exist will affect which one you choose.Interestingly, this choice will likely be affected byframes other than “costs more” because thesestimuli are in a variety of other frames such as“hard to get” or “more sentimental.”In RFT, Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche

(2001) define relational frames as relationaloperants with three properties; the first ismutualentailment. In a frame of coordination (equiva-lence), if A¼B then the language-capablehuman will demonstrate, without additionaltraining, the entailed B¼A relation. Likewise,in a frame of “less than,” learning A<B entailsthat B>A. A second property of relationalframing is combinatorial entailment; that is, if A isrelated in some way to B (e.g., same, less than)and C is related in the same way to B, then it isentailed that B and C should be related as well(e.g., if A<B and B <C, then combinatorialentailed requires that A<C, and C>A). Thefirst two of these properties, RFT holds, areacquired through multiple exemplar training.In other words, relating is, at first, explicitlytaught but multiple exemplar training estab-lishes that relating, as a generalized operant, isappropriate regardless of the formal propertiesof the stimuli to be related.As with many other types of generalized

responding, the appropriate contexts in whichrelational responding will occur is affectedthrough a process of discrimination training.One of the differences between relationalframing and other more discrete responses isthat the types of relational responding that willoccur are based on arbitrary aspects of theenvironment. Sometimes they are clear, but inmore real-life situations they are subtle. For

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS 3

example, some “dangerous” situations areclearly dangerous, whereas others may behard to explain why they feel wrong. Neverthe-less, aspects of these environments set thecontext to respond to stimuli in accordancewith particular relational frames.

In the present special issue, Walsh, Horgan,May, Dymond, and Whelan (2014) presentadditional evidence for the utility of multipleexemplar training as one means by whichemergent relating behavior may be acquired.Their research explores the utility of a computerprogram (the Relational Completion Proce-dure) designed to efficiently establish emergentrelating behavior in typically developing andlanguage-delayed children diagnosed with anautism-spectrum disorder. Consistent with RFT,the multiple-exemplar-based training programproved effective in establishing frames ofcoordination.

The third property of relational framing,transfer of function, is one that has importantimplications for understanding how stimuliacquire functions in the absence of directtraining. For example, Roche & Barnes (1997)demonstrated that abstract stimuli indirectlyacquired sexually arousing functions via derivedequivalence relations with visually presentedsexual stimuli. As another example, Augustsonand Dougher (1997) found that avoidance-evoking functions can also transfer throughstimulus equivalence classes. The clinical im-plications of such work for understandingphobias and anxiety disorders are obvious. Inaddition to the transfer of emotion-eliciting andavoidance-evoking functions among membersof stimulus equivalence classes, investigatorshave demonstrated the transfer of virtually everyother stimulus function, including contextualcontrol (Gatch & Osborne, 1989; Kohlenberg,Hayes, & Hayes, 1991), conditional control(Roche & Barnes, 1996; Wulfert & Hayes,1988), discriminative control (Barnes &Keenan, 1993; deRose, McIlvane, Dube, Galpin,& Stoddard, 1988; Roche, Barnes-Holmes,Smeets, Barnes-Holmes, & McGeady, 2000),conditioned reinforcement and punishment(Greenway, Dougher, & Wulfert, 1996; Hayes,Kohlenberg, & Hayes, 1991), ordinal functions(Green, Sigurdardottir, & Saunders, 1991;Lazar, 1977; Lazar & Kotlarchyk, 1986; Wulfert& Hayes, 1988), and instructional control(McGuigan & Keenan, 2002). Taken together,these studies provide convincing evidence that

virtually any Pavlovian or operant function cantransfer to or be indirectly acquired via derivedstimulus relations.

There are two contexts that influence rela-tional responding: a relational context and afunctional context. These two contexts areunder control of different aspects of theenvironment. Specifically, the relational contextguides the repertoire of relating behavior thatwill be brought to bear on the stimuli them-selves, whereas another context guides thefunctions of the stimuli. This is of criticalimportance because it suggests that both aspectsof stimuli (relational context and functionalcontext) can be separately affected. Thus, in alltraining or clinical situations, one should thinkabout whether their goals are to expand arelational network or to affect the functionalresponse that occurs. In many skills-acquisitioncontexts, such as education, the trainermight bemost focused on the relations being trained;whereas, in many clinical situations, in additionto being concerned with the particular relationsthat are being built, the therapist might benotably concerned with the functional contextunder which a response occurs. For example,the person with posttraumatic stress disordermay never forget the trauma, but he can getmore skilled at experiencing the fear in adifferent functional context that does not fosteravoidance.

Researchers working within the RFT traditionhave developed numerous and complex labora-tory models of the many varieties of relationalframes and they have outlined how relatingbehavior might be applied to relational framesthemselves (e.g., Stewart, Barnes-Holmes,Roche, & Smeets, 2002). For example, in thepresent issue of JEAB, Slattery and Stewart(2014) develop an RFT preparation that modelshierarchical class formation, a topic of greatinterest to cognitive-developmental psycholo-gists. In hierarchical classification, one mustrelate in specific ways classes of stimuli. Pomera-nian, for example, is a stimulus class containingall dogs that share the genetics of this inbredstrain. Pomeranian, as a stimulus class, ishierarchically classified as subordinate to theclass dogs, which contains Pomeranians and allother canines. Within this frame of hierarchicalclassification dogs includes Pomeranians but theentailed relation is that Pomeranians aremembers of the class dogs. Slattery and Stewartestablish two contextual stimuli to control

4 MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

relational frames of “members of” and “in-cludes” and establish a class (like dog), subclass(like Pomeranian) and a super-ordinate class(like animals). In these two contexts, derivedresponding and transformation of function, aspredicted in RFT, are demonstrated. Theirfindings illustrate a working RFT model ofhierarchical class formation and suggest ameans by which these relational networks mightbe established. These findings are importantbeyond their ability to predict; they have appliedimplications.One of the key tenets of RFT is that, once

established, relating or relational responding ismaintained in part by coherence or sensemaking (Hayes, Fox et al., 2001). Coherenceitself is learned and occurs when a relationalframe results in derived relations that areconsistent with previous learning. For example,given an unambiguous relational network suchas A>B >C, it is easy to derive, that is, it makessense, that A>C and C<A. Given an ambigu-ous relational network, however, such as A>Cand B>C, it is more difficult or impossible toderive coherent relations between A and Bwithout more information. That is, it cannot bedetermined whether A¼B, A>B, or A<B.Ambiguous relational networks abound in

natural environments, yet individuals routinelyderive entailed relations often in idiosyncraticways. These idiosyncratic derivations are some-times called thinking patterns or cognitiveerrors by cognitive theorists and commonlygiven causal status. Within the field of clinicalpsychology, cognitive models took the lead frombehavioral ones because behavioral modelscould not well account for the “cognitive” eventsthat were occurring within clinical disorders.The idea that idiosyncratic thinking patternscan be problematic is not in itself objectionablefrom a behavioral perspective, but the criticalscientific task is to understand the history andcontexts that result in both those thinkingpatterns and their functional role in a behavior-al system. This is the issue Quinones and Hayes(2014) sought to address.In Experiment 1, participants first learned

two 3-stimulus networks (A1<B1, A1>C1 andA2>B2, C2<A2) and were then presented testtrials to see whether they classified the combi-natorial relations (B1–C1 and B2–C2) as Sameor Different and as> or <. Although the B–Ccombinatorial relation in the first network isderivable (B1> C1 and therefore B1 different

from C1), it is not derivable in the secondnetwork. When participants were required tospecify the B–C relation in network 2 as eitherSame or Different they responded idiosyncrati-cally. Those who chose Different, also consis-tently chose B2 as either> or<C2. Those whoclassified the B–C relation as Same respondedinconsistently In Experiment 2, nonarbitrarymultiple exemplar pretraining was used to biasparticipants to respond either Same or Differentto ambiguous combinatorial relations. As inExperiment 1, those biased toward Differentconsistently chose a comparative relation be-tween B2 and C2 while those biased towardSame responded inconsistently. These findingssupport the importance of history and coher-ence in establishing patterns of responding toambiguous relational networks and suggest abehavioral model of cognitive styles and errors.

Practical Implications of RFTThe application of RFT has been vast, ranging

from clinical interventions for psychologicaldisorders (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2012) toorganizational behavior management (Hayes,Bond, Barnes-Holmes, & Austin, 2006). For thepurpose of this brief editorial, we will confineour discussion of the translation of RFT toclinical phenomena.The examples that have been provided thus far

have generally dealt with an external stimulusthat has a behavioral function. These are usefulexamples but private stimuli such as privatespeaking (one form of cognition) or broaderresponses such as “anxiety” are of criticalimportance for much of the work done inapplied psychology (Friman, Hayes, & Wilson,1998). Cognitive and emotional events are alsostimuli and are members of equivalence classes.Our dog-phobic child will feel anxiety when shehears a dog bark in the distance. The presence ofthis emotion (anxiety) similar to thoughts such as“that dog might be dangerous” are likely settingevents or establishing operations in this situation,but the important part is that these private eventshave influence on the child’s actions. In mostwestern cultures feelings of anxiety, depression,self-doubt, and soonhavebeen labeled (are in anequivalence relation with) bad, disorder, sick,flawed, etc. By virtue of combinatorial entail-ment, if a person (I) experiences such feelings, Ican become equivalent with all of those negativedescriptors. The resulting derived stimulus rela-tion is “I am flawed,” or “something is wrong.” In

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS 5

this way, private events themselves can acquirefunctions for verbally competent humans that arenot inherent in the events themselves. Dogs mayexperience fear, but they do not feel badly aboutthemselves for being so. Given the derivedaversive function of certain private events, it isnatural that individuals would engage in behav-iors to escape and avoid them. Such attemptscollectively are called emotional avoidance andcan include a variety of topographically differentbut functionally related behaviors, such assubstance abuse, social alienation, intimacydifficulties, compulsions, anger problems, panicattacks, prolonged depression, etc. (Hayes,Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006; Hayes,Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996). Fromthis perspective, emotional avoidance is the causeof many clinical disorders, but relating is at thecore of this avoidance.

Traditional cognitive-behavioral approachesto treating clinical disorders, like anxiety,assume that cognition is causal—disorderedthoughts must be identified and replaced byrational thinking if the anxiety disorder is to beameliorated (Hoffman, Asmundson, & Beck,2013). RFT suggested a different (behavioranalytic) and data-based approach to addressingclinical disorders, an approach embodied inAcceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT,Hayes et al., 2012).

Readers of JEAB may be largely unaware thatACThas over the last 15 years become one of themore popular empirically-based clinical treat-ment modalities. This popularity is based onempirical research findings that support ACT asa treatment for several psychological disordersincluding depression, psychosis, substance de-pendence, and chronic pain (Hayes, Levin,Plumb-Vilardaga, Villatte, & Pistorello, 2013).

ACT differs from other cognitive and behav-ioral therapies in that it makes few directattempts to alter private experiences. Rather,it largely takes a contextual approach to alteringtheir function (i.e., transformation of function).Consider the feeling most of us experiencewhen riding a roller coaster or when skiing asteep downhill run. The private physiologicalexperience is quite similar to the feelingdescribed as “anxiety” by the dog-phobic childbut the function of that private stimulus is verydifferent. Where the feeling (in a frame ofcoordination with anxiety, bad, I am, intolera-ble, disorder, etc.) has an escape/avoidancefunction, the same feeling, experienced in a

different context, has an approach function andis in a frame of coordination with fun, thrilling,exciting, etc. Observing that the same privatestimulus can have a different behavioral func-tion depending on context, the ACT therapistseeks to provide a new context in which adifferent relational frame may be brought tobear on anxiety (for example) and the otherstimuli with which it is in a frame ofcoordination.

For the client suffering from an anxietydisorder, thoughts of anxiety-provoking stimuli(e.g., saying something stupid in a public forum)are in a frame of coordination with being in apublic forum and saying something stupid. Theanxiety eliciting function of the real event istransferred to the thought of the event, suchthat merely thinking about anxiety-provokingsituations can produce physiological arousaland distress. Anxiety can have the same effect asa dangerous event, a judgmental thought canfunction like a real criticism, and the fear offailing can function like actually failing. Oneprocess by which the behavioral functions ofprivate events are altered is called “defusion”(Hayes et al., 2012). In broad terms, defusiontechniques attempt to alter the functionalcontext in which the stimulus (internal orexternal) occurs. Defusion techniques em-ployed by ACT therapists are designed to alterclients’ perspectives of private experience byhelping them to observe them from a distant ordetached perspective, to see them as theyactually are (as instances of private behavior)rather than as the function-transformed eventsthat their verbal processes have rendered.

In this special issue of JEAB, an interestinganalog study is presented by Luciano et al.(2014). Their study tested the effectiveness of adefusion intervention for reducing experimen-tally induced generalized avoidance. Comparedto two control interventions, a brief, verbaldefusion protocol suppressed avoidance re-sponding to a conditioned and derived set ofaversive stimuli in all participants. Notably, byand large, only the functional context underwhich the derived relations occurred wastargeted in the brief clinical intervention. Theparticipants were taught how to experiencetheir reactions in a verbal context of “justnoticing” and cognitive distance. The relationalresponding still occurred, but it occurred in adifferent verbal context that transformed thefunction of stimuli that had previously evoked

6 MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

avoidance behavior. This back-translationalstudy exemplifies the behavior analytic traditionof subjecting clinical interventions to experi-mental analysis.

SummaryStanding as we are, knee-deep in the stream of

the scientific study of relating behavior, we cansee clearly the advances made over the last75 years in basic research laboratories. Therecognition and study of equivalence relatingwas a watershed moment, and the theories thatthis discovery has generated have driven impor-tant research lines for several decades. If youadd in the applied work that utilizes equivalenceor RFT, or is based on the science, the impact ofthis work is nothing short of phenomenal.Although our feet are wet, there is a good deal

of work left to be done. Behavior analysis as afield has traditionally not embraced complexhuman cognition as a research focus and thathas been costly—costly to behavior analysis andto the larger fields of psychology and humandevelopment, because the demonstrated abilityof behavior analysts to bring a rigorous scientificanalysis to language and cognition has beenlargely unrecognized and undervalued. Recentadvances in the study of emergent symmetry andin building complex relational networks prom-ise new insights, new theoretical advances, andfurther impact through socially significanttranslation. Research on transformation ofstimulus function illustrates that one contextcontrols the types of relational responding thatoccur, and a second affects the transformationof stimulus function. These two contexts haveproven to be experimentally and clinicallyimportant, and this instance of translation is amodel for science informing the practice.Existing theories, particularly RFT, are not

without controversy (e.g., Palmer, 2004) andthis is as it should be in any vibrant area ofresearch and debate. However, RFT, as acoherent and generative behavior-analytic the-ory of language and cognition, has helped us toford further into the stream, getting us on ourway to addressing important issues on whichbehavior analysis has traditionally been silent.Theories are bent by data, and the same will betrue of existing theories of relational respond-ing. It is our hope that this special issue willstimulate the collection of more data, data thatwill help to bend our theories to conform to thecontours of nature.

References

Anrep, G. V. (1923). The irradiation of conditioned reflexes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 94, Series B, 404–425.

Augustson, E. M., & Dougher, M. J. (1997). The transfer ofavoidance evoking functions through stimulus equiva-lence classes. Journal of Behavior Therapy and ExperimentalPsychiatry, 28, 181–191.

Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functionsthrough derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulusrelations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,59, 61–81.

Bass, M. J., & Hull, C. L. (1934). The irradiation of tactileconditioned reflex in man. Journal of the ComparativePsychology, 17, 125–148.

Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextualcontrol of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29–45. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-29

Campos, H. C., Urcuioli, P. J., & Swisher, M. (2014).Concurrent identify training is not necessary forassociative symmetry in successive matching. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 10–25.

Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J.(2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimalverbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 74, 101–115.

Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982).Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior:Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248.

Daniels, C. W., Laude, J. R., & Zentall, T. R. (2014). Six-termtransitive inference with pigeons: Successive-pair train-ing followed by mixed-pair training. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 26–37.

de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., &Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discriminationestablished by indirect relation to differential conse-quences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,50, 1–20.

Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Maguire, R. W., Mackay, H. A.,& Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Stimulus class formation andstimulus-reinforcer relations. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 51, 65–76.

Dymond, S. (2014). Meaning is more than associations:Relational operants and the search for derived relationsin nonhumans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 101, 152–155.

Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Advances in relational frametheory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: NewHarbinger.

Fields, L., Verhave, T., & Fath, S. (1984). Stimulusequivalence and transitive associations: A methodologi-cal analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,42, 143–157.

Frank, A. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (2005). Associativesymmetry in the pigeon after successive matching-to-sample training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 84, 147–165.

Friman, P. C., Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1998). Whybehavior analysts should study emotion: The example ofanxiety. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(1), 137–156. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-137

Gatch,M. B., &Osborne, J. G. (1989). Transfer of contextualstimulus function via equivalence class development.

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS 7

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 369–378.

Gerard, C. J., Mackay, H. A., Thompson, B., &McIlvane,W. J.(2014). Rapid generation of balanced trial distributionsfor discrimination learning procedures: A technicalnote. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101,171–178.

Green, G., Sigurdardottir, Z. G., & Saunders, R. R. (1991).The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinalfunctions through equivalence classes. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235–270.

Greenway, D. E., Dougher, M. J., & Wulfurt, E. (1996). Thetransfer of conditioned reinforcement and punishmentfunctions through stimulus equivalence classes. Psycho-logical Record, 46, 131–144.

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001).Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of humanlanguage and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.

Hayes, S. C., Bond, F. W., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Austin, J.(2006). Acceptance and mindfulness at work: Applyingacceptance and commitment therapy and relational frametheory to organizational behavior management. Binghamton,NY: Haworth Press.

Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1984). Verbal behavior:Is the human operant laboratory an ideal place tobegin? Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 2,11–13.

Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., &Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivityto changing consequences of responding. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256.

Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relationalresponding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D.Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational FrameTheory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language andcognition (pp. 21–49). New York: Plenum Press.

Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding thephilosophical core: A review of Stephen C. Pepper’sWorld hypotheses: A study in evidence. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 97–111.

Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). Thetransfer of specific and general consequential functionsthrough simple and conditional equivalence relations.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119–137. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-119

Hayes, S. C., Levin,M. E., Plumb-Vilardaga, J., Villatte, J. L., &Pistorello, J. (2013). Acceptance and CommitmentTherapy and Contextual Behavioral Science: Examin-ing the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral andcognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 44, 180–198. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2009.08.002

Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J.(2006). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model,processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy,44(1), 1–25.

Hayes, S. C., & Sanford, B. (2014). Cooperation came first:Evolution and human cognition. Journal of the Experimen-tal Analysis of Behavior, 101, 112–129.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012).Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practiceof mindful change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., &Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behav-

ioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach todiagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 64(6), 1152–1168.

Hoffman, S. G., Asmundson, G. J. G., & Beck, A. T. (2013).The science of cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 44,199–212.

Hughes, S., &Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). Associative conceptlearning, stimulus equivalence, and Relational FrameTheory: Working out the similarities and differencesbetween human and nonhuman behavior. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 156–160.

Hull, C. L. (1939). The problem of stimulus equivalence inbehavior theory. Psychological Review, 46, 9–30. doi:10.1037/h0054032

Johnson, C., Meleshkevich, O., & Dube, W. V. (2014).Merging separately established stimulus classes withoutcome-specific reinforcement. Journal of the Experimen-tal Analysis of Behavior, 101, 38–50.

Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). Thetransfer of contextual control over equivalence classesthrough equivalence classes: A possible model of socialstereotyping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 56, 505–518.

Lazar, R. (1977). Extending sequence-class membershipwith matching to sample. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 27, 381–392.

Lazar, R. M., & Kotlarchyk, B. J. (1986). Second-ordercontrol of sequence-class equivalences in children.Behavioural Processes, 13, 205–215.

Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Ruiz, F. J., Rodriguez-Valverde,M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Dougher, M. J., … Gutierrez-Martínez, O., (2014). Effects of an acceptance/defusionintervention on experimentally induced generalizedavoidance: A laboratory demonstration. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 94–111.

Maguire, R. W., Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., & Demis, C. A.(1994).Matching to complex samples and stimulus classformation in adults with autism and young children.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(6) 753–772.

McIlvane, W. J. (2014). “Associative concept learning inanimals” by Zentall, Wasserman, and Urcuioli: Acommentary. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 101, 161–164.

McGuigan, S., & Keenan, M. (2002). Rule following infunctional equivalence classes. European Journal ofBehavior Analysis, 1, 21–29.

Murphy, G. L. (2002).The big book of concepts. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.

Palmer, D. (2004). Data in search of a principle: a review ofRelational Frame Theory: A post-Skinnerian account ofhuman language and cognition. Journal of the Experimen-tal Analysis of Behavior, 81(2), 189–204.

Quinones, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2014). Relational coherencein ambiguous and unambiguous relational networks.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 76–93.

Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1996). Arbitrarily applicablerelational responding and sexual categorization: Acritical test of the derived relation. The PsychologicalRecord, 45, 451–475.

Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation ofrespondently conditioned stimulus function in accor-dance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301. doi:10.1901/jeab.1997.67-275

8 MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual controlover the derived transformation of discriminative andsexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50,267–291.

Shipley, W. C. (1933). An apparent transfer of conditioning.Journal of General Psychology, 8, 382–391.

Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalen-ces. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.

Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbalclasses. In T. Thompson & M. E. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysisand integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hill-sdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforce-ment contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 74, 127–146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127

Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. Jr. (1973). Reading and cross-modal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retar-dation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 515–523.

Sidman, M., Cresson, O., & Willson-Morris, M. (1974).Acqusition of matching to sample via mediated transfer.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 261–273. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-261

Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-21

Sidman,M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discriminationvs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testingparadigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,37, 5–22.

Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science,213, 501–504.

Slattery, B., & Stewart, I. (2014).Hierarchical classification asrelational framing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 101, 61–75.

Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M.(2002). A functional-analytic model of analogy: Arelational frame analysis. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 78, 375–396.

Urcuioli, P. J. (2008). Associative symmetry, “anti-symmetry,”and a theory of pigeons: equivalence-class formation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 257–282. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-257

Urcuioli, P. J., Wasserman, E. A., & Zentall, T. R. (2014).Associative concept learning in animals: issues andopportunities. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 101, 165–170.

Walsh, S., Horgan, J., May, R. J., Dymond, S., & Whelan, R.(2014). Facilitating relational framing in children andindividuals with developmental delay using the Rela-tional Completion Procedure. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 101, 51–60.

Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolution for everyone: How Darwin’s theorycan change the way we think about our lives. New York, NY:Delta.

Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). The transfer ofconditional sequencing through conditional equiva-lence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 50, 125–144.

Zentall, T. R., Galizio, M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2002).Categorization, concept learning, and behavior analysis:An introduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 78, 237–248.

Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2014).Associative concept learning in animals. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 130–151.

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS 9