Dermot Barnes-Holmes

The recent resurgence of Kantorian interbehavioral psychology in the context of relational frame theory (RFT) has prompted a reevaluation of RFT’s core concepts through an interbehavioral lens. Although RFT acknowledges its Kantorian roots, recent works have called for a more serious consideration of interbehaviorism in the context of developing the theory towards a more complete analysis of the complexity of human language and cognition. In particular, the current article aims to explore the alignment between the RFT concept of the relational frame and the interbehavioral interpretation of psychological happenings. To this end, the relational frame is dissected to clarify (mentalistic) misconceptions of RFT, and is then compared with interbehavioral constructs such as stimulus and response functions, substitute stimulation, and interbehavioral history. The integration of these perspectives suggests that RFT may benefit from a field-based approach to experimental and applied research. We argue that by applying the interbehavioral concept of stimulus substitution for stimuli that differ arbitrarily in multiple ways (i.e., multiple stimulus relations), the door may be opened for the entire RFT research program to yield (at least potentially) to interbehavioral field-based analyses.

Previous research has suggested that scores generated using a sexual orientation Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) correlate with self-reported sexual orientation in gay and heterosexual men and have a strong ability to differentiate the two groups (Timmins et al., 2016). The present study sought to replicate this work and to determine how a range of groups that differ in terms of self-reported sexual orientation perform on the measure. Lesbian/gay, heterosexual, and bisexual women ( n = 99) and men ( n = 96) completed a sexual orientation IRAP and self-report measures of sexual attraction and behavior. The IRAP involved responding “True” or “False” to pictures of nude males and females paired with words meaning attractive or unattractive. Participants were required to respond as if all men were attractive and all women were unattractive for half of the IRAP’s test blocks, and vice versa for the other half. Response latencies were recorded, and D -IRAP scores were calculated for overall responses, female responses, and male responses. Significant correlations were found between all D -IRAP scores and all corresponding self-report measures for men ( r s = .38–.64). This was also true for women ( r s = .24–.53) with a single exception: the D -IRAP score for responses to men with self-reported sexual attraction to men. Similarly, almost all D -IRAP scores significantly differentiated sexual orientation groups (areas under the curve = .64–.92), apart from bisexual and lesbian/gay women. These findings suggest the IRAP is a useful ex situ measure of sexual orientation.

The development of procedures to assess the psychological functions of stimuli has long been a prevalent endeavor in psychological science. It can be argued that one of the most influential of such procedures is the implicit association test (IAT), which was conceived as a measure of implicit attitudes within social-cognitive psychology. Two other procedures, developed within a behavior-analytic theoretical framework, were inspired by the IAT: the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the function acquisition speed test (FAST). The current article aims to thoroughly describe and compare the IAT, the IRAP and the FAST, focusing on their procedural characteristics and theoretical backgrounds, before then considering theoretical implications specific to each procedure. Finally, we briefly reflect on a number of theoretical implications that arose from the foregoing comparisons. In so doing, several points of contact and departure are highlighted. We conclude by advocating for an equitable and comprehensive evaluation of these methodologies when considering their use within the experimental analysis of human behavior.

Research on human language started to change when Murray Sidman and colleagues demonstrated that a participant was able to derive unreinforced stimulus relations after conditional discrimination training. This work provided the basis for a novel approach to research on symbolic behavior and fostered the development of three main theoretical accounts: stimulus equivalence (SE), relational frame theory (RFT), and naming theory (NT). These accounts unfolded in the last decades of the twentieth century, promoting intense debate and discussion within behavior analysis. Although experimental research emerging from these three accounts is still highly active today, the theoretical discussions have, to a large extent, faded. Considering the importance of rekindling a dialogue, this article aims to describe the differences among the three accounts, but focus on their common points. We conclude by arguing that developing a more complete behavior-analytic account of human language would be served best by considering both research and theoretical analyses of SE, RFT and NT. Finally, we provide examples of two successful research groups that adopted this approach and in doing so have advanced our understanding of language within behavior analysis.

The differential arbitrarily applicable relational responding effects (DAARRE) model explains two effects commonly observed with the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP): the single trial-type dominance effect (STTDE) and the dissonant-target trial-type effect (DTTTE). We sought to explore variables that modulate these effects. Forty-two participants who completed an IRAP met the practice criteria (median latency ≤ 2,000 ms and accuracy ≥ 80% correct) and thus proceeded to six test blocks of trials. The IRAP had four trial-types: trial-type 1: happy-face—happy-word; trial-type 2: happy-face—fear-word; trial-type 3: fear-face—happy-word; trial-type 4: fear-face—fear-word. Participants were randomly assigned to start with a consistent (respond True, False, False, True, respectively, to the four trial-types) or inconsistent (opposite responding) block. Difference (D_IRAP) scores were calculated (inconsistent minus consistent latencies). A significantly larger D_IRAP score was observed in trial-type 2 relative to trial-type 3 (a DTTTE), but only for participants who started with the inconsistent block. A “happiness superiority” STTDE (i.e., larger D_IRAP score on trial-type 1 relative to trial-type 4) was observed, but only for participants who failed to maintain the criteria at the trial-type level (in any of the trial-types). Overall, the findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between the functional versus relational properties of the stimuli presented within an IRAP. The modulation of the DTTTE is interpreted in terms of functional coherence between the target and response option in inconsistent blocks. A novel data-analytic algorithm is presented to identify performance criteria violations at the trial-type level. The findings suggest that a greater focus is required in relational frame theory on the impact of the functional properties of stimuli on relational framing.