Abstract
In this commentary, I describe relational frame theory (RFT) as an analysis of complex human behavior that has been insufficiently addressed within contemporary behavior analysis. The theory is described as having an exceptionally ambitious vision of the type that will render behavior analytic accounts more generally acceptable within the broader behavioral and cognitive sciences. In my own view, inductive empirically-driven analyses derived from current data on relational learning (including my own) have not been comparably ambitious; they have not addressed the full range of phenomena to which they might be profitably applied. By contrast, researchers in the RFT tradition have ambitious; they have not addressed the full range of phenomena to which they might be profitably applied. By contrast, researchers in the RFT tradition have tended to project their analyses to encompass a variety of plausible, attractive applications that are arguably within the reach of their current data or data that may be reasonably anticipated in the future. In order for RFT researchers to have its maximum impact, however, I suggest that certain critical steps must be accomplished. First, the theory must be reconciled with the basic behavioral processes that are the core of the experimental analysis of behavior. Second, certain experiments must be conducted that have thus far not been emphasized in the RFT tradition. In particular, I suggest that the current practice of studying college students and verbal school-aged children must be supplemented with comparably intensive studies of populations with developmental limitations (e.g., typically developing children who are just acquiring language). Absent such experimentation, it seems likely that RFT will remain a plausible account that merely competes with other plausible accounts without promoting ultimate resolution of the critical issues.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1967). The development of imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 405–416.
Barnes, D., McCullagh, P. D., & Keenan, M. (1990). Equivalence class formation in non-hearing impaired children and hearing impaired children. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 19–30.
Bates, E., Elman, J., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1998). Innateness and emergentism. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 590–601). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D. E., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 101–114.
Catania, A. C. (1984). Learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Deacon, T. W., (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W. W. Norton.
Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257.
Epstein, R. (1985). The spontaneous interconnection of three repertoires. The Psychological Record, 35, 131–141.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Goldiamond, I. (1964). A research and demonstration procedure in stimulus control, abstraction, and environmental programming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 216.
Goldiamond, I. (1966). Perception, language, and conceptualization rules. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving (pp. 183–224). New York: Wiley.
Griffee, K. & Dougher, M. J. (2002). Contextual control of stimulus generalization and stimulus equivalence in hierarchical categorization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 433–447.
Guess, D., Sailor, W., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Children with limited language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language intervention strategies (pp. 101–143). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hayes, S. C, Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001) (Eds.). Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.
Kagan, J. (1981). The second year: The emergence of self-awareness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lipkens, R., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.
Mackay, H. A., Kotlarchyk, B. J., & Stromer, R. (1997). Stimulus classes, stimulus sequences, and generative behavior. In E. M. Pinkston & D. M. Baer (Eds.), Environment and behavior (pp. 124–137). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
McIlvane, W. J., Serna, R. W., Dube, W. V., & Stromer, R. (2000). Stimulus control topography coherence and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In J. Leslie & D. E. Blackman (Eds.) Issues in experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 85–110). Context Press: Reno.
Prokasy, W. F., & Hall, J. F. (1963). Primary stimulus generalization. Psychological Review, 70, 310–322.
Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sidman, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D.E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1–49). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stromer, R., McIlvane, W. J., & Serna, R. W. (1993). Complex stimulus control and equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 585–598.
Wilkinson, K. M. & McIlvane, W. J. (2001). Methods for studying symbolic behavior and category formation: Contributions of stimulus equivalence research. Developmental Review, 21, 355–374.
Wilkinson, K. M., Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1998). Fast mapping and exclusion (emergent matching) in developmental language, behavior analysis, and animal cognition research. The Psychological Record, 48, 407–422.
Whiten, A., & Custance, D. (1996). Studies of imitation in chimpanzees and children. In C. M. Heyes, and B. G. Galef (Eds.), Social Learning in Animals: The Roots of Culture (pp. 291–318). San Diego: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this review was supported by NICHD grant HD39816. The input of Geraldine Leader in framing certain of the arguments is gratefully acknowledged, as are the comments of Bill Dube on an earlier version of this manuscript. My debt to Murray Sidman will be obvious throughout.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McIlvane, W.J. A Stimulus in Need of a Response: A Review of Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. Analysis Verbal Behav 19, 29–37 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392980
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392980