2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0065-2407(02)80063-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
118
0
7

Year Published

2002
2002
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

5
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 126 publications
(125 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
118
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…It is unclear why this effect was not replicated. Moreover, from an RFT perspective, mental arithmetic would seem to involve relational responding (see Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2001). The differences across studies might be due to the different contexts within which the arithmetic subtest was presented in both studies (i.e., as part of the complete WAIS-III or as one of just three subtests presented).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is unclear why this effect was not replicated. Moreover, from an RFT perspective, mental arithmetic would seem to involve relational responding (see Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2001). The differences across studies might be due to the different contexts within which the arithmetic subtest was presented in both studies (i.e., as part of the complete WAIS-III or as one of just three subtests presented).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It seems logical, therefore, to predict relatively strong effects for Dangerous-White and Safe-Black trials, but these effects were not clearly evident in the data. To explain this apparent anomaly, it is important to bear in mind that the REC model predicts IRAP effects based on immediate and brief relational responses, not logical reasoning, which typically involves relatively elaborate and extended relational responding (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2001). According to the REC model, therefore, the data from Experiment 2 indicate that frames of coordination (i.e., the verbal relation of equivalence or similarity) between "Safe" and "White" and between "Dangerous" and "Black" were relatively strong, but frames of distinction (i.e., the verbal relation of difference) between "Dangerous" and "White" and between "Safe" and "Black" were not (the word strong is used here simply to denote a high probability in immediate relational responding).…”
Section: The Relational Elaboration and Coherence Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In empirical work, research has largely focused in particular on the interpersonal, spatial, and temporal relations of I-You, Here-There, and Now-Then (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2001;McHugh et al, 2004). Skills with these relations are commonly assessed by their speed and accuracy under contextual conditions of increasing complexity in which relations are tested in Simple form, or are Reversed and Double-Reversed (e.g., McHugh et al, 2004).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%