Relational Frame of Opposition or Responding by Exclusion: A Study with Same and Opposite Cues
- Alonso-Alvarez, Benigno (Long Island University Post)
AbstractAccording to relational frame theory (RFT), stimulus equivalence is a relational frame. But there are other relational frames, like opposition (Hayes et al., 2001). We tested an alternative explanation of studies on the opposition frame. For Alonso-Alvarez (2019), equivalence and exclusion can explain the outcomes of these studies. In Phase 1, four college students learned to match identical stimuli with Same as context. They learned to match most different stimuli with Opposite as context. In Phase 2, we established two equivalence classes, A1B1C1 and A2B2C2. The four participants matched same-class stimuli with Same, and different-class stimuli with Opposite. In Phase 3, participants learned to match B1 and C1 to A1, with Same. They also learned to match B2 and C2 to A1, with Opposite. The four participants matched C2 to B2 with Same on tests. In Phase 4, participants learned to match B1 and C1 to A1, and B2 to A2, with Same. They learned to match C2 to A1 with Opposite. Three participants matched C2 to B2 with Same on tests. The formation of A1B1C1 class and the exclusion of C1 with sample B2 and Same explains the outcomes of Phases 3 and 4. The combinatorial entailment of opposition relations can explain the outcomes of Phase 3. For RFT, if B2 and C2 are the opposite of A1, then they are the same. In Phase 4, combinatorial entailment of opposition relations was not possible. This suggest that equivalence and exclusion explain responses consistent with the opposition frame.
Update Metadata: 2020-07-06 | Issue Number: 1 | Registration Date: 2020-07-06