Transformation of Thought Suppression Functions Via Same and Opposite Relations

Abstract

We recommend you cite the published version. The publisher's URL is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0113-0 Refereed: YesThe final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40732?014?0113?0 Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited. UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. Transfer of Thought Suppression Via Same and Opposite 1 AbstractThis study investigated transfer of thought suppression functions via 'same' and 'opposite' relations. In Experiment 1 participants were trained and tested for two five-member relational networks involving same and opposite relations. They then had to suppress a target word from one of the two networks, while words appeared individually onscreen including the target, and words either in the same (target) or a different (nontarget) network. They could remove any word by pressing the spacebar. Findings showed more frequent and faster removal of the target than other words and of words in the target network than other words. Experiment 2, which involved predominantly 'opposite' relations, produced a similar but weaker pattern. Experiment 3 replicated the pattern seen in Experiment 2, while showing that the relations designated as opposite produced a more conventional transformation of functions in a context other than thought suppression.

Analysis of apparent demonstrations of responding in accordance with relational frames of sameness and opposition

“…The present study may have practical implications for the prediction and control of DSRs in clinical and educational contexts. Many of the stimuli and responses used in RFT studies on sameness and opposition were clinically or educationally relevant (e.g., Bennett et al, ; Stewart et al, ). If, in these studies, Same and Opposite were cues for equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion, then Same and Opposite could have controlled additional DSRs like those demonstrated in Experiment 2.…”

“…These frames are defined by specific properties of mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and transformation of functions, and can be combined into relational networks. An example is AARR in accordance with the frames of sameness and opposition; two types of frames frequently investigated in RFT research (e.g., Bennett, Hermans, Dymond, Vervoort, & Baeyens, 2015;Cassidy, Roche, & Hayes, 2011;Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, & Rhoden 2007, 2008Dymond, Tsz, & Whelan, 2013;Dymond & Whelan, 2010;Ninness et al, 2009;Perez, Almeida, & de Rose, 2015;Roche & Barnes, 1996, 1997Roche, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Barnes-Holmes, & McGeady, 2000;Steele & Hayes, 1991;Stewart et al, 2015;Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004; see a citation analysis of RFT in Dymond, May, Munnelly, & Hoon, 2010).…”

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

“…In most experiments on frames of sameness and opposition (e.g., Stewart et al, 2015), RFT experimenters first trained SAME as a contextual cue for selecting comparisons physically identical to the samples, and OPPOSITE as a contextual cue for selecting the comparisons most physically dissimilar to the samples. For instance, they trained SAME-short line [ , N2].…”

“…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].…”

“…X1 and X2 were then presented in a series of training and test trials analogous 2 to SAME-A1 [B1, B2, N1], SAME-A1 [C1, C2, N2], SAME-A2 [B2, B1, N1], and OPPOSITE-A1 [C2, C1, N2]. In their Experiment 3, Stewart et al (2015) used SAME and OPPOSITE in the nonarbitrary and arbitrary training and test phases typically presented in RFT studies on sameness and opposition (see above). In this case, the relation of opposition between B2 and A1 was not trained.…”