See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259353444

Editorial: Basic and Translational

Research on Stimulus-Stimulus
Relations
ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR JANUARY 2014
Impact Factor: 1.48 DOI: 10.1002/jeab.69 Source: PubMed

CITATION

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

33

73

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Michael Dougher
University of New Mexico
44 PUBLICATIONS 730 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Gregory Madden
Utah State University
82 PUBLICATIONS 2,855 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Michael Dougher

Retrieved on: 15 June 2015

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR

2014, 101, 19

NUMBER

1 (JANUARY)

EDITORIAL: BASIC AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH ON STIMULUSSTIMULUS RELATIONS

MICHAEL DOUGHER1, MICHAEL P. TWOHIG2, AND GREGORY J. MADDEN2
1

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

2
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

further training, demonstrates that A A, B B,

C C, B A, C A, B C, and C B, typically
in a conditional discrimination task where the
first symbol serves as a sample stimulus and the
second is selected from several available comparison stimuli (Sidman & Tailby, 1982). Substituting a dog for Stimulus A, dog for B, and
perro for C, reveals why this research paradigm was quickly recognized as a means by
which a behavior-analytic approach might be
applied to the study of complex cognitive
phenomena (e.g., Fields, Verhave, & Fath,
1984; Sidman, 1986). That is, an approach
focused on identifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for producing emergent relating behavior.
This special issue of the Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) focuses
on stimulusstimulus relations. Understanding
the varieties of relating behavior has generated
an enormous amount of research in human and
animal laboratories and the findings have
generated new theories that have themselves
occasioned additional investigations. As has so
often been the case in our science, translational
research findings have emerged and, in some
circles, have proliferated. This special issue of
JEAB offers an opportunity to look back upon
what we know, what we are learning today, and
to consider the ongoing potential of what has
proven to be a fruitful research line. In what
follows of this editorial, we walk that path.

One of the great challenges for a behavioral

science is to provide an account of emergent
stimulusstimulus relations not explained by
primary stimulus generalization. For example,
the relation between the visual stimulus dog and
the sound made when someone says dog is
often referred to as arbitrary because the two
stimuli have no point-to-point correspondence
(one is a sound, the other a creature incapable
of making the sound dog). In humans,
through natural language training, these two
stimuli are related (an activity) such that they may
occasion similar responding. For example, a
child suffering from a dog phobia may experience an increased heart rate and jump into the
arms of a parent who says, at the front door of a
friends house, They have a dog, just as he
would if he saw the dog. This two-member class
of arbitrarily related stimuli is expanded when
the verbal response perro is related as
equivalent to dog and, subsequently, hearing
They have a perro elicits the same fear
responding in the dog-phobic listener.
Emergent stimulus relations have been of
interest since the beginnings of experimental
psychology (e.g., Anrep, 1923; Bass & Hull, 1934;
Hull, 1939; Shipley, 1933) and since that time,
an extensive taxonomy of the variety of stimulusstimulus relations has been created (see
Murphy, 2002; Zentall, Galizio, & Critchfield,
2002). The study of emergent relating behavior
experienced a behavior-analytic renaissance, of
sorts, in the 1970s when Murray Sidman
dropped everything else and began publishing
studies on what would come to be called
stimulus equivalence (Sidman, 1971; Sidman
& Cresson, 1973; Sidman, Cresson, & WillsonMorris, 1974). As most readers know, stimuli are
related as equivalent when following If A Then B
and If A Then C training, the individual, without

Laboratory Advances in Relational

Responding
In 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 important
theoretical accounts of the origin of relating
behavior 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

MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

reinforcement contingency was that context,

discriminative stimulus, response, and reinforcer could all come to function as equivalent
stimuli. Sidmans hypothesis is experimentally
explored in this special issue of JEAB by Johnson,
Meleshkevich, and Dube (2014). Their study
establishes two 3-member equivalence classes,
each with a different type of reinforcer, and
then, for the first time in the published
literature, uses these outcome-specific reinforcers to merge the two classes into one 8member equivalence class. Johnson et al. speculate on how such mergers in natural human
environments could expand classes of equivalent stimuli in a way that could generatively
expand the stimuli that elicit, for example,
unwanted emotional responding, a topic considered again later in this paper.
Understanding the origin(s) of stimulus
stimulus relating is important if we are to
efficiently establish these relations in individuals
for whom they do not typically develop (e.g.,
Carr, Wilkinson, Blackman & McIlvane, 2000;
Maguire, Stromer, Mackay & Demis, 1994) and
if we are interested in mapping the evolutionary
origins of complex relating behavior. The
literature review by Zentall, Wasserman, and
Urcuioli (2014) in this issue provides an
overview of the extensive concept-learning
research conducted with nonhumans, research
designed to explore the necessary and sufficient
conditions for establishing stimulusstimulus
relations of myriad types. The Zentall et al.
review outlines representational accounts of
emergent (untrained) stimulusstimulus relating behavior, and summarizes the results of
frequently ingenious experiments designed to
test these accounts. The article also reviews
procedures that have proven effective in creating functional classes of stimuli and recent
advances in establishing emergent symmetric
relations (following A!B training relating B!A
emerges) in nonhumans (e.g., Frank &
Wasserman, 2005; Urcuioli, 2008). The latter
portion of the Zentall et al. paper makes for
fascinating reading as it reveals how the relating
behavior of the scientist arranging the experiment is different from that of the nonhuman in
that the latter lacks the extended learning
history of an adult human (e.g., learning that
when naming an object red it matters not
when, where, or what shape the red object
takes). Researchers working from different
theoretical orientations provide commentaries

on the Zentall et al. paper (Hughes & BarnesHolmes, 2014; Dymond, 2014; McIlvane, 2014),
and the spirited discussion concludes with a
reply by Urcuioli, Wasserman, and Zentall
(2014).
This special issue of JEAB includes two
experiments representing this animal-research
tradition. The paper by Campos, Urcuioli, and
Swisher (2014) further investigates the emergent symmetric relating behavior of pigeons,
asking if training identity matching (i.e., if A
then A) is a necessary condition for symmetry. In
two experiments they provide strong evidence
that identity matching is not a necessary
condition and, in so doing, provide additional
support for Urcuiolis (2008) theory of pigeons
equivalence class formation. In the Daniels,
Laude, and Zentall (2014) paper, a procedure is
presented for efficiently exploring pigeons
ability to make emergent transitive inferences
within a series of trained A > B > C > D > E > F
relations. Transitive relating is demonstrated on
test trials in which their pigeons prefer B over D,
B over E, and/or C over E; stimuli never
previously presented together and both of
which had served as S and S-.
The special issue also includes a technical
article that will be of interest in particular to
those conducting relational research with humans. Gerard, Mackay, Thompson, and McIlvane (2014) describe computer algorithms they
have developed for creating balanced distributions of stimuli in matching-to-sample preparations. These programs can facilitate the
important task of determining when and where
stimuli will be presented so as to avoid idiosyncratic preferences for stimuli or position.
Relational Frame Theory
Hayes and colleagues (e.g., Hayes &
Brownstein, 1984; Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle,
Rosenfarb, & Korn, 1986; Wulfert & Hayes,
1988) were inspired by the work of Sidman and
others (e.g., Catania, Matthews, & Shimoff,
1982) whose findings shed new light on a
behavioral approach to complex verbal behavior, including that often seen in clinical settings.
Since that time, the importance and development of emergent stimulus relations for understanding language and complex cognition have
been extensively explored within Relational
Frame Theory (RFT; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &
Roche, 2001), with much of the latter work
being led by Dermot Barnes-Holmes and

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS

colleagues. This work is ever evolving and
pulling in other fields of science including
evolution science.
In the present issue of JEAB, the Perspectives on
Behavior article by Hayes and Sanford (2014)
discusses the increasing recognition among
evolutionary biologists that learning and behavior are centrally important in understanding
natural selection. For example, Hayes and
Sanford note that behavior puts members of a
species in contact with new environments (e.g.,
the migration of man from Africa) and with new
selection pressures (e.g., new pathogens, predators, and prey), which, in turn, yield ontogenetic and phylogenetic change. The authors suggest
that evolutionary biologists are increasingly
integrating general process learning theories
into their evolutionary models, while suggesting
that evolutionary processes can modify learning
processes to the specifics of the niche. As an
example of the latter, Hayes and Sanford
develop an argument, contrary to Skinner
(1981) but in accord with Wilson (2007) that
human cooperation preceded language, and
when combined with building-block abilities
such as social referencing and perspective
taking, prepared humans to acquire symmetric
relational learning, a fundamental component
of referential logic and what would later become
human language. The argument makes for
interesting reading, as does the authors perspective on strategies for further integrating
behavioral research into evolution science.
Beyond mutually entailed symmetry, RFT
views stimulus equivalence performance as
resulting from a particular kind of learned
stimulus relation: correspondence or sameness.
While correspondence is viewed as foundational, 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 to
behave appropriately to specified or derived
relations. For example, once a child learns the
comparative relations more than and less than and
is then told that a dime is more than a nickel, she
will be able to report that a nickel is less than a
dime. The child is not responding to the
physical properties of the dime or the nickel
(in which the nickel is larger), but to the
arbitrary 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 symbolic

relations between words and virtually every
object, action, or relation with which those
names (tacts) are related as equivalent. A
learned generalized repertoire of a specific
form of arbitrary relational responding (e.g.,
relating object and name of object as same) is
referred to as a relational frame. Once learned, a
relational frame can be arbitrarily applied to any
set of stimuli. For example, we can arbitrarily
apply a frame of comparison to any two (or
more) objects. Take a look at any two objects
and choose which one is better, more valuable,
or aesthetically pleasing. The decision could be
difficult, but forced to do it, we bet you could.
Now lets say you are allowed to keep only one
object. The relational frames in which these two
objects exist will affect which one you choose.
Interestingly, this choice will likely be affected by
frames other than costs more because these
stimuli 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 relational
operants with three properties; the first is mutual
entailment. In a frame of coordination (equivalence), if A B then the language-capable
human will demonstrate, without additional
training, the entailed B A relation. Likewise,
in a frame of less than, learning A < B entails
that B > A. A second property of relational
framing is combinatorial entailment; that is, if A is
related in some way to B (e.g., same, less than)
and C is related in the same way to B, then it is
entailed that B and C should be related as well
(e.g., if A < B and B <C, then combinatorial
entailed requires that A < C, and C > A). The
first two of these properties, RFT holds, are
acquired through multiple exemplar training.
In other words, relating is, at first, explicitly
taught but multiple exemplar training establishes that relating, as a generalized operant, is
appropriate regardless of the formal properties
of the stimuli to be related.
As with many other types of generalized
responding, the appropriate contexts in which
relational responding will occur is affected
through a process of discrimination training.
One of the differences between relational
framing and other more discrete responses is
that the types of relational responding that will
occur are based on arbitrary aspects of the
environment. Sometimes they are clear, but in
more real-life situations they are subtle. For

MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

example, some dangerous situations are

clearly dangerous, whereas others may be
hard to explain why they feel wrong. Nevertheless, aspects of these environments set the
context to respond to stimuli in accordance
with particular relational frames.
In the present special issue, Walsh, Horgan,
May, Dymond, and Whelan (2014) present
additional evidence for the utility of multiple
exemplar training as one means by which
emergent relating behavior may be acquired.
Their research explores the utility of a computer
program (the Relational Completion Procedure) designed to efficiently establish emergent
relating behavior in typically developing and
language-delayed children diagnosed with an
autism-spectrum disorder. Consistent with RFT,
the multiple-exemplar-based training program
proved effective in establishing frames of
coordination.
The third property of relational framing,
transfer of function, is one that has important
implications for understanding how stimuli
acquire functions in the absence of direct
training. For example, Roche & Barnes (1997)
demonstrated that abstract stimuli indirectly
acquired sexually arousing functions via derived
equivalence relations with visually presented
sexual stimuli. As another example, Augustson
and Dougher (1997) found that avoidanceevoking functions can also transfer through
stimulus equivalence classes. The clinical implications of such work for understanding
phobias and anxiety disorders are obvious. In
addition to the transfer of emotion-eliciting and
avoidance-evoking functions among members
of stimulus equivalence classes, investigators
have demonstrated the transfer of virtually every
other stimulus function, including contextual
control (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 can

transfer to or be indirectly acquired via derived
stimulus relations.
There are two contexts that influence relational responding: a relational context and a
functional context. These two contexts are
under control of different aspects of the
environment. Specifically, the relational context
guides the repertoire of relating behavior that
will be brought to bear on the stimuli themselves, whereas another context guides the
functions of the stimuli. This is of critical
importance because it suggests that both aspects
of stimuli (relational context and functional
context) can be separately affected. Thus, in all
training or clinical situations, one should think
about whether their goals are to expand a
relational network or to affect the functional
response that occurs. In many skills-acquisition
contexts, such as education, the trainer might be
most focused on the relations being trained;
whereas, in many clinical situations, in addition
to being concerned with the particular relations
that are being built, the therapist might be
notably concerned with the functional context
under which a response occurs. For example,
the person with posttraumatic stress disorder
may never forget the trauma, but he can get
more skilled at experiencing the fear in a
different functional context that does not foster
avoidance.
Researchers working within the RFT tradition
have developed numerous and complex laboratory models of the many varieties of relational
frames and they have outlined how relating
behavior might be applied to relational frames
themselves (e.g., Stewart, Barnes-Holmes,
Roche, & Smeets, 2002). For example, in the
present issue of JEAB, Slattery and Stewart
(2014) develop an RFT preparation that models
hierarchical class formation, a topic of great
interest to cognitive-developmental psychologists. In hierarchical classification, one must
relate in specific ways classes of stimuli. Pomeranian, for example, is a stimulus class containing
all dogs that share the genetics of this inbred
strain. Pomeranian, as a stimulus class, is
hierarchically classified as subordinate to the
class dogs, which contains Pomeranians and all
other canines. Within this frame of hierarchical
classification dogs includes Pomeranians but the
entailed relation is that Pomeranians are
members of the class dogs. Slattery and Stewart
establish two contextual stimuli to control

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS

relational frames of members of and includes and establish a class (like dog), subclass
(like Pomeranian) and a super-ordinate class
(like animals). In these two contexts, derived
responding and transformation of function, as
predicted in RFT, are demonstrated. Their
findings illustrate a working RFT model of
hierarchical class formation and suggest a
means by which these relational networks might
be established. These findings are important
beyond their ability to predict; they have applied
implications.
One of the key tenets of RFT is that, once
established, relating or relational responding is
maintained in part by coherence or sense
making (Hayes, Fox et al., 2001). Coherence
itself is learned and occurs when a relational
frame results in derived relations that are
consistent with previous learning. For example,
given an unambiguous relational network such
as A > B >C, it is easy to derive, that is, it makes
sense, that A > C and C < A. Given an ambiguous relational network, however, such as A > C
and B > C, it is more difficult or impossible to
derive coherent relations between A and B
without more information. That is, it cannot be
determined whether A B, A > B, or A < B.
Ambiguous relational networks abound in
natural environments, yet individuals routinely
derive entailed relations often in idiosyncratic
ways. These idiosyncratic derivations are sometimes called thinking patterns or cognitive
errors by cognitive theorists and commonly
given causal status. Within the field of clinical
psychology, cognitive models took the lead from
behavioral ones because behavioral models
could not well account for the cognitive events
that were occurring within clinical disorders.
The idea that idiosyncratic thinking patterns
can be problematic is not in itself objectionable
from a behavioral perspective, but the critical
scientific task is to understand the history and
contexts that result in both those thinking
patterns and their functional role in a behavioral 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 and
A2 > B2, C2 < A2) and were then presented test
trials to see whether they classified the combinatorial relations (B1C1 and B2C2) as Same
or Different and as > or <. Although the BC
combinatorial relation in the first network is
derivable (B1> C1 and therefore B1 different

from C1), it is not derivable in the second

network. When participants were required to
specify the BC relation in network 2 as either
Same or Different they responded idiosyncratically. Those who chose Different, also consistently chose B2 as either > or < C2. Those who
classified the BC relation as Same responded
inconsistently In Experiment 2, nonarbitrary
multiple exemplar pretraining was used to bias
participants to respond either Same or Different
to ambiguous combinatorial relations. As in
Experiment 1, those biased toward Different
consistently chose a comparative relation between B2 and C2 while those biased toward
Same responded inconsistently. These findings
support the importance of history and coherence in establishing patterns of responding to
ambiguous relational networks and suggest a
behavioral model of cognitive styles and errors.
Practical Implications of RFT
The application of RFT has been vast, ranging
from clinical interventions for psychological
disorders (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2012) to
organizational behavior management (Hayes,
Bond, Barnes-Holmes, & Austin, 2006). For the
purpose of this brief editorial, we will confine
our discussion of the translation of RFT to
clinical phenomena.
The examples that have been provided thus far
have generally dealt with an external stimulus
that has a behavioral function. These are useful
examples but private stimuli such as private
speaking (one form of cognition) or broader
responses such as anxiety are of critical
importance for much of the work done in
applied psychology (Friman, Hayes, & Wilson,
1998). Cognitive and emotional events are also
stimuli and are members of equivalence classes.
Our dog-phobic child will feel anxiety when she
hears a dog bark in the distance. The presence of
this emotion (anxiety) similar to thoughts such as
that dog might be dangerous are likely setting
events or establishing operations in this situation,
but the important part is that these private events
have influence on the childs actions. In most
western cultures feelings of anxiety, depression,
self-doubt, and so on have been labeled (are in an
equivalence relation with) bad, disorder, sick,
flawed, etc. By virtue of combinatorial entailment, if a person (I) experiences such feelings, I
can become equivalent with all of those negative
descriptors. The resulting derived stimulus relation is I am flawed, or something is wrong. In

MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

this way, private events themselves can acquire

functions for verbally competent humans that are
not inherent in the events themselves. Dogs may
experience fear, but they do not feel badly about
themselves for being so. Given the derived
aversive function of certain private events, it is
natural that individuals would engage in behaviors to escape and avoid them. Such attempts
collectively are called emotional avoidance and
can include a variety of topographically different
but functionally related behaviors, such as
substance abuse, social alienation, intimacy
difficulties, compulsions, anger problems, panic
attacks, prolonged depression, etc. (Hayes,
Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006; Hayes,
Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996). From
this perspective, emotional avoidance is the cause
of many clinical disorders, but relating is at the
core of this avoidance.
Traditional cognitive-behavioral approaches
to treating clinical disorders, like anxiety,
assume that cognition is causaldisordered
thoughts must be identified and replaced by
rational thinking if the anxiety disorder is to be
ameliorated (Hoffman, Asmundson, & Beck,
2013). RFT suggested a different (behavior
analytic) and data-based approach to addressing
clinical disorders, an approach embodied in
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT,
Hayes et al., 2012).
Readers of JEAB may be largely unaware that
ACT has over the last 15 years become one of the
more popular empirically-based clinical treatment modalities. This popularity is based on
empirical research findings that support ACT as
a treatment for several psychological disorders
including depression, psychosis, substance dependence, and chronic pain (Hayes, Levin,
Plumb-Vilardaga, Villatte, & Pistorello, 2013).
ACT differs from other cognitive and behavioral therapies in that it makes few direct
attempts to alter private experiences. Rather,
it largely takes a contextual approach to altering
their function (i.e., transformation of function).
Consider the feeling most of us experience
when riding a roller coaster or when skiing a
steep downhill run. The private physiological
experience is quite similar to the feeling
described as anxiety by the dog-phobic child
but the function of that private stimulus is very
different. Where the feeling (in a frame of
coordination with anxiety, bad, I am, intolerable, disorder, etc.) has an escape/avoidance
function, the same feeling, experienced in a

different context, has an approach function and

is in a frame of coordination with fun, thrilling,
exciting, etc. Observing that the same private
stimulus can have a different behavioral function depending on context, the ACT therapist
seeks to provide a new context in which a
different relational frame may be brought to
bear on anxiety (for example) and the other
stimuli with which it is in a frame of
coordination.
For the client suffering from an anxiety
disorder, thoughts of anxiety-provoking stimuli
(e.g., saying something stupid in a public forum)
are in a frame of coordination with being in a
public forum and saying something stupid. The
anxiety eliciting function of the real event is
transferred to the thought of the event, such
that merely thinking about anxiety-provoking
situations can produce physiological arousal
and distress. Anxiety can have the same effect as
a dangerous event, a judgmental thought can
function like a real criticism, and the fear of
failing can function like actually failing. One
process by which the behavioral functions of
private events are altered is called defusion
(Hayes et al., 2012). In broad terms, defusion
techniques attempt to alter the functional
context in which the stimulus (internal or
external) occurs. Defusion techniques employed by ACT therapists are designed to alter
clients perspectives of private experience by
helping them to observe them from a distant or
detached perspective, to see them as they
actually are (as instances of private behavior)
rather than as the function-transformed events
that their verbal processes have rendered.
In this special issue of JEAB, an interesting
analog study is presented by Luciano et al.
(2014). Their study tested the effectiveness of a
defusion intervention for reducing experimentally induced generalized avoidance. Compared
to two control interventions, a brief, verbal
defusion protocol suppressed avoidance responding to a conditioned and derived set of
aversive stimuli in all participants. Notably, by
and large, only the functional context under
which the derived relations occurred was
targeted in the brief clinical intervention. The
participants were taught how to experience
their reactions in a verbal context of just
noticing and cognitive distance. The relational
responding still occurred, but it occurred in a
different verbal context that transformed the
function of stimuli that had previously evoked

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS

avoidance behavior. This back-translational
study exemplifies the behavior analytic tradition
of subjecting clinical interventions to experimental analysis.
Summary
Standing as we are, knee-deep in the stream of
the scientific study of relating behavior, we can
see clearly the advances made over the last
75 years in basic research laboratories. The
recognition and study of equivalence relating
was a watershed moment, and the theories that
this discovery has generated have driven important research lines for several decades. If you
add in the applied work that utilizes equivalence
or RFT, or is based on the science, the impact of
this 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 a
field has traditionally not embraced complex
human cognition as a research focus and that
has been costlycostly to behavior analysis and
to the larger fields of psychology and human
development, because the demonstrated ability
of behavior analysts to bring a rigorous scientific
analysis to language and cognition has been
largely unrecognized and undervalued. Recent
advances in the study of emergent symmetry and
in building complex relational networks promise new insights, new theoretical advances, and
further impact through socially significant
translation. Research on transformation of
stimulus function illustrates that one context
controls the types of relational responding that
occur, and a second affects the transformation
of stimulus function. These two contexts have
proven to be experimentally and clinically
important, and this instance of translation is a
model for science informing the practice.
Existing theories, particularly RFT, are not
without controversy (e.g., Palmer, 2004) and
this is as it should be in any vibrant area of
research and debate. However, RFT, as a
coherent and generative behavior-analytic theory of language and cognition, has helped us to
ford further into the stream, getting us on our
way to addressing important issues on which
behavior analysis has traditionally been silent.
Theories are bent by data, and the same will be
true of existing theories of relational responding. It is our hope that this special issue will
stimulate the collection of more data, data that
will help to bend our theories to conform to the
contours 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 of
avoidance evoking functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 28, 181191.
Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions
through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus
relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
59, 6181.
Bass, M. J., & Hull, C. L. (1934). The irradiation of tactile
conditioned reflex in man. Journal of the Comparative
Psychology, 17, 125148.
Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual
control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 2945. doi: 10.1901/
jeab.1989.51-29
Campos, H. C., Urcuioli, P. J., & Swisher, M. (2014).
Concurrent identify training is not necessary for
associative symmetry in successive matching. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 1025.
Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J.
(2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal
verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 74, 101115.
Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982).
Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior:
Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233248.
Daniels, C. W., Laude, J. R., & Zentall, T. R. (2014). Six-term
transitive inference with pigeons: Successive-pair training followed by mixed-pair training. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 2637.
de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., &
Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination
established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
50, 120.
Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Maguire, R. W., Mackay, H. A.,
& Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Stimulus class formation and
stimulus-reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 51, 6576.
Dymond, S. (2014). Meaning is more than associations:
Relational operants and the search for derived relations
in nonhumans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 101, 152155.
Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Advances in relational frame
theory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: New
Harbinger.
Fields, L., Verhave, T., & Fath, S. (1984). Stimulus
equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
42, 143157.
Frank, A. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (2005). Associative
symmetry in the pigeon after successive matching-tosample training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 84, 147165.
Friman, P. C., Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1998). Why
behavior analysts should study emotion: The example of
anxiety. 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 contextual
stimulus function via equivalence class development.

MICHAEL DOUGHER et al.

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 distributions
for discrimination learning procedures: A technical
note. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101,
171178.
Green, G., Sigurdardottir, Z. G., & Saunders, R. R. (1991).
The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinal
functions through equivalence classes. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235270.
Greenway, D. E., Dougher, M. J., & Wulfurt, E. (1996). The
transfer of conditioned reinforcement and punishment
functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Psychological Record, 46, 131144.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001).
Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human
language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S. C., Bond, F. W., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Austin, J.
(2006). Acceptance and mindfulness at work: Applying
acceptance and commitment therapy and relational frame
theory 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 to
begin? Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 2,
1113.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., &
Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity
to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237256.
Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., BarnesHolmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relational
responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D.
Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational Frame
Theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and
cognition (pp. 2149). New York: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding the
philosophical core: A review of Stephen C. Peppers
World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 97111.
Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The
transfer of specific and general consequential functions
through 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 Commitment
Therapy and Contextual Behavioral Science: Examining the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral and
cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 44, 180198. 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), 125.
Hayes, S. C., & Sanford, B. (2014). Cooperation came first:
Evolution and human cognition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 112129.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012).
Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice
of mindful change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
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 to

diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 11521168.
Hoffman, S. G., Asmundson, G. J. G., & Beck, A. T. (2013).
The science of cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 44,
199212.
Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). Associative concept
learning, stimulus equivalence, and Relational Frame
Theory: Working out the similarities and differences
between human and nonhuman behavior. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 156160.
Hull, C. L. (1939). The problem of stimulus equivalence in
behavior theory. Psychological Review, 46, 930. doi:
10.1037/h0054032
Johnson, C., Meleshkevich, O., & Dube, W. V. (2014).
Merging separately established stimulus classes with
outcome-specific reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 3850.
Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The
transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes
through equivalence classes: A possible model of social
stereotyping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 56, 505518.
Lazar, R. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership
with matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381392.
Lazar, R. M., & Kotlarchyk, B. J. (1986). Second-order
control of sequence-class equivalences in children.
Behavioural Processes, 13, 205215.
Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Ruiz, F. J., Rodriguez-Valverde,
M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Dougher, M. J., GutierrezMartnez, O., (2014). Effects of an acceptance/defusion
intervention on experimentally induced generalized
avoidance: A laboratory demonstration. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 94111.
Maguire, R. W., Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., & Demis, C. A.
(1994). Matching to complex samples and stimulus class
formation in adults with autism and young children.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(6) 753
772.
McIlvane, W. J. (2014). Associative concept learning in
animals by Zentall, Wasserman, and Urcuioli: A
commentary. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 101, 161164.
McGuigan, S., & Keenan, M. (2002). Rule following in
functional equivalence classes. European Journal of
Behavior Analysis, 1, 2129.
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Palmer, D. (2004). Data in search of a principle: a review of
Relational Frame Theory: A post-Skinnerian account of
human language and cognition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81(2), 189204.
Quinones, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2014). Relational coherence
in ambiguous and unambiguous relational networks.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 7693.
Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1996). Arbitrarily applicable
relational responding and sexual categorization: A
critical test of the derived relation. The Psychological
Record, 45, 451475.
Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of
respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275301. doi:
10.1901/jeab.1997.67-275

EDITORIAL: STIMULUS-STIMULUS RELATIONS

Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., BarnesHolmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control
over the derived transformation of discriminative and
sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50,
267291.
Shipley, W. C. (1933). An apparent transfer of conditioning.
Journal of General Psychology, 8, 382391.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 513.
Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal
classes. In T. Thompson & M. E. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis
and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213245). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 74, 127146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127
Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. Jr. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 515523.
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). Sixmember stimulus classes generated by conditionaldiscrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 43, 2142. doi: 10.1901/jeab.
1985.43-21
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination
vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing
paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
37, 522.
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science,
213, 501504.

Slattery, B., & Stewart, I. (2014). Hierarchical classification as

relational framing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 101, 6175.
Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M.
(2002). A functional-analytic model of analogy: A
relational frame analysis. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 78, 375396.
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 and
opportunities. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 101, 165170.
Walsh, S., Horgan, J., May, R. J., Dymond, S., & Whelan, R.
(2014). Facilitating relational framing in children and
individuals with developmental delay using the Relational Completion Procedure. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 101, 5160.
Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolution for everyone: How Darwins theory
can change the way we think about our lives. New York, NY:
Delta.
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). The transfer of
conditional sequencing through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 50, 125144.
Zentall, T. R., Galizio, M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2002).
Categorization, concept learning, and behavior analysis:
An introduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 78, 237248.
Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2014).
Associative concept learning in animals. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 130151.