Analysis of apparent demonstrations of responding in accordance with relational frames of sameness and opposition by Alonso‐Alvarez and Perez‐Gonzalez (2018): A rejoinder

The evidence base for the opposition frame: A reply to Stewart, Dymond, & Roche (2019)

“…However, the abundant research conducted from this perspective has generated results of theoretical and applied importance (e.g., Colbert, Tyndall, Roche, & Cassidy, 2018). I hope that this reply to Stewart, Dymond, and Roche (2019), focused on the relational frame of opposition, will contribute to that effort. This analysis requires moving from demonstration to experimental studies, and contrasting RFT with alternative accounts.…”

“…The consistency of this hypothesis with the results does not mean that the hypothesis is fully confirmed. Stewart et al (2019) also argue that "several previous studies have either established or strengthened opposition relational responding as an operant response in young children" (p. 6). Thus, it is difficult to understand what Stewart et al (2019) mean when they state that our hypothesis "is not based on empirical evidence" (p. 7).…”

“…In this case, the relation of opposition between B2 and A1 was not trained. According to Stewart et al (2019), these results involved transformation of function in accordance with the frames of sameness and opposition, and cannot be explained by contextual control over equivalence, nonequivalence, and exclusion. The hypothesis that the participants selected C2 by the exclusion of C1 and N2 still holds, however.…”

“…In this experiment, pretraining with nonarbitrary relations was replaced by pretraining with arbitrary relations. Stewart et al (2019) argue that "Alonso-Alvarez and Perez-Gonzalez's (2017 thesis is incompatible with data generated with research protocols that have not employed their particular methodology" (p. 4). These outcomes suggest X1 was a cue for equivalence-or sameness in RFT terms-and X2 was a cue for nonequivalence (i.e., for selecting comparisons from a different equivalence class as the samples).…”

“…We did not train nonarbitrary relations, thus there is no a priori reason to think that X2 was a cue for the frame of opposition, but that possibility cannot be ruled out. Stewart et al (2019) argue that the studies by Stewart et al (2015) and Perez, de Almeida and de Rose (2015) "have also produced data that cannot be explained in terms of equivalence, nonequivalence and exclusion" (p. 5). Despite these changes, the participants derived relations analogous to the ones mentioned above: SAME-B1 [C1, C2, N2], SAME-B2 [C2, C1, N2], OPPOSITE-B1 [C2, C1, N2], and OPPOSITE-B2 [C1, C2, N2].…”