|
| Relational Frame Theory: Theory, Research, and Application |
| Tuesday, June 1, 2010 |
| 9:00 AM–10:20 AM |
| 214C (CC) |
| Area: VBC |
| Chair: Mitch Fryling (The Chicago School, Los Angeles) |
| |
| Responding in Relational Frame Theory: Modality Matters |
| Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| GINGER KELSO (Stepen F. Austin State University), Timothy A. Slocum (Utah State University) |
| |
| Abstract: While derived relational responding has been taught using many different materials, relations, and responses, it is still unclear how the modality of response may affect the participants’ success at acquiring relational responses. We will explore the effects of modality of response on past and original research in derived relational responding. Children may show mastery of relational skills through several types of responses such as pointing, saying, writing, or performing an action. Using both relational frame theory and the naming theory we will examine whether relative effectiveness of training intended to produce derived relational responding may be partially explained by the modality of response required of the participants. In the current study, children were taught name and category relations for a set of stimuli in one of two response formats. Half of the children responded through pointing while the other half responded through saying. Each child was then tested for derived performance on names and categories in both formats – pointing and saying. We found that the pointing response, which requires visual discrimination, is more likely to suggest successful learning of relational responses when compared to a spoken response. Therefore, modality introduces important differences in accuracy of responding. Assumptions that relational responses transfer across modalities are not warranted. |
| |
| Interbehavioral Foundations for Relational Responding |
| Domain: Theory |
| MITCH FRYLING (The Chicago School, Los Angeles) |
| |
| Abstract: Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is a popular approach to complex language and cognition in behavior analysis. This paper examines the conceptual foundations of RFT, and describes some alternatives based upon J. R. Kantor’s philosophy of Interbehaviorism and scientific system of Interbehavioral Psychology. It is argued that these foundations might be considered complimentary rather than incompatible with the goals of RFT. The relevance of Interbehaviorism toward understanding relational responding is highlighted. |
| |
|
| |