EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2009, 10, 31 - 47 NUMBER 1 (SUMMER 2009)

31

Some thoughts on the relation

between derived relational responding
and verbal behavior
Jay Moore
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

The present paper critically examines the bold claims of Relational Frame Theory (RFT) advocates that
RFT is a comprehensive approach to the phenomena referred to in traditional parlance as language and
cognition, and is manifestly preferable in both scope and detail to that found in B. F. Skinner’s book
Verbal Behavior. Although some data do indicate a high positive correlation between derived relational
responding and verbal behavior, in keeping with RFT, other data indicate at best a low correlation.
The reasons for the differences between expected and actual correlations across the several data sets
are not clear. We conclude that despite the value of RFT, the nature and causes of derived relational
responding, as well as the relation between derived relational responding and verbal behavior more
generally, remain an important area of investigation.
Keywords: relational framing theory, verbal behavior, mutually entailed relations, combinatorially
entailed relations, transformation of stimulus function, autoclitic behavior

Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche (2001, p.
viii) stated that after several years in incipient or
inchoate status, relational frame theory (here-
after, RFT) was first presented to the behavior
analytic community in any detailed way in 1985
(Hayes & Brownstein, 1985). Since then, it
has spawned numerous research articles, book
chapters, heated theoretical debates, as well as
an important book (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes,
& Roche, 2001) that has itself spawned too
many reviews, replies, and counter-replies to go
over here. The present discussion reviews the
nature of RFT, and then examines what we can
say about what causes it and how it is related
to verbal behavior, with due recognition of the
work of others who have written or conducted
research on these same issues.
Author note: I thank Per Holth and Erik Arntzen for their
kind invitations to participate in their Seminar on Verbal Behav-
ior, and for their distinguished leadership in the Behavior Analysis
Community. Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to J. Moore, Ph. D., Dept of Psychology, University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, phone: (414)
229-4746, email: jcm@uwm.edu
31
B. F. Skinner regarded his book Verbal Be-
havior (Skinner, 1957) as his most important
work. In its more charitable moments, of which
there are few, RFT champions itself as “post-
Skinnerian,” applying the empirical principles
of operant behavior, reinforcement theory,
and environment-based accounts of behavior
to language and the complex instances of hu-
man behavior referred in traditional accounts
as cognition. In its less charitable moments,
of which there are many, “RFT directly chal-
lenges Skinner’s perspective on verbal events”
(Hayes, 1994, p. 20), suggesting that Skinner’s
perspective enjoys an “unwarranted dominance”
(Hayes, 1994, p. 20) because it is actually con-
ceptually limited, empirically incorrect, and
theoretically flawed. We note with interest that
RFT explicitly, forcefully, and in our opinion
distastefully casts itself as an adversary rather
than an extension or continuation of Skinner’s
approach. Exactly why RFT advocates feel
the need to adopt a strident adversarial stance
is not abundantly clear. A particular and fre-
32 Jay Moore
quent RFT charge is that Skinner’s definition
of verbal behavior is not functional and is too
broad, including virtually any socially medi-
ated behavior as verbal (e.g., Hayes, 1994, p.
20; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001, p.
12). We revisit this charge at the conclusion of
this paper, when we consider the definition of
verbal behavior.
At this point, we can acknowledge that Skin-
ner didn’t directly or extensively engage many of
the topics of interest to RFT advocates. How-
ever, passages in Skinner’s writing do indicate
he was genuinely sensitive to these topics. For
example, consider the following passage from
Verbal Behavior:
Something less than full-fledged relational
autoclitic behavior is involved when partially
conditioned autoclitic “frames” combine with
responses appropriate to a specific situation.
Having responded to many pairs of objects with
behavior such as the hat and the shoe and the gun
and the hat, the speaker may make the response
the boy and the bicycle on a novel occasion. If
he has acquired a series of responses such as the
boy’s gun, the boy’s shoe, and the boy’s hat, we may
suppose that the partial frame the boy’s _____ is
available for recombination with other responses.
The first time the boy acquires a bicycle, the
speaker can compose a new unit the boy’s bicycle.
This is not simply the emission of two responses
separately acquired. The process resembles the
multiple causation of Chapter 9. The relational
aspects of the situation strengthen a frame, and
specific features of the situation strengthen
responses fitted into it. (Skinner, 1957, p. 336)
In this passage, readers may note that the last
sentence actually contains the words “relational”
and “frame.”
Next, consider another passage from Verbal
Behavior:
Thus, we hear a man called Jones and see him
respond appropriately to this “vocative.” As a
result, we may also address him as Jones, or later
reply Jones to the question Who was there? or
correctly designate him when asked Which man
was Jones? But this does not all happen in the
naive speaker or listener; it is the end result of a
long process of verbal conditioning. The young
child hearing someone called Jones many times
does not therefore himself call him Jones, nor
for this reason report that Jones was present, nor
point to Jones in replay to the question Which
is Jones? All these stages are developed through
the use of autoclitics.... A purely verbal defini-
tion appears to use the same process. Thus An
amphora is a Greek vase with two handles has at
least three effects upon the listener. As a result
of having heard this response he may (1) say
amphora when asked What is a Greek vase with
two handles called?, (2) say A Greek vase having
two handles when asked What is an amphora?, and
(3) may point appropriately when asked Which of
these is an amphora? Again, these are not results
which occur spontaneously in the naive speaker
but rather as the product of a long history of
verbal conditioning. Education is largely con-
cerned with setting up the behavior necessary to
permit these changes to occur. (Skinner, 1957,
pp. 359-360)
In this passage, readers may note that the
two sentences that point out some instances
of verbal behavior come about only as a con-
sequence of a long process or history of verbal
conditioning. Skinner did not specify the
precise nature of that history, but presumably
further knowledge of that history is very impor-
tant for an adequate understanding of verbal
behavior (see also Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-
Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000, p. 71).
What is Derived Relational Responding?
Detailed presentations of the fundamentals
of RFT are available elsewhere. Accordingly,
we give only a brief summary here. According
to Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche (2001),
Relational frame theory is a behavior analytic
approach to human language and cognition.
RFT treats relational responding as a general-
ized operant, and thus appeals to a history of
multiple-exemplar training. Specific types of
relational responding, termed relational frames,
are defined in terms of the three properties of
mutual and combinatorial entailment, and the
transformation of functions. Relational frames
are arbitrarily applicable, but are typically not
necessarily arbitrarily applied in the natural
language context. (p. 141)
 Relational responding
Relating means responding conditionally to
one stimulus or event on the basis of its relation
to another. For RFT, the important cases are
when the stimuli are related in some abstract
way, rather than through directly trained rela-
tions or through a shared physical or formal
property along a continuous dimension like
length, width, height, weight, wavelength, or
frequency, as in primary stimulus generaliza-
tion. Arbitrarily applicable suggests the impor-
tance of conventional practices and distinctions
in the verbal community as the abstract basis for
these relations. For example, all chairs do not
look alike. However, we may learn to call object
X a chair because it has been verbally related to
other objects conventionally called chairs, even
though we haven’t had the experience of suc-
cessfully sitting on object X and it doesn’t look
very much like other objects conventionally
called chairs. Verbal behavior is bi-directional,
in the sense that a verbal stimulus will often
function as the equivalent for an object, and
vice versa. In addition, words often refer or
function equivalently to each other. When
two stimuli become related to each other in the
absence of a history of direct reinforcement or
shared formal properties, we speak of mutual
entailment. Mutual entailment means that
interactions with the environment have led
speakers to respond on the basis of the particular
relations that exist between the two objects in
the environment. When three or more stimuli
become related to each other in the absence
of a history of direct reinforcement or shared
formal properties, we speak of combinatorial
entailment. Combinatorial entailment means
that interactions with the verbal community
have led speakers to respond to particular rela-
tions that exist among multiple objects in the
environment on the basis of the words that are
used to describe those relations. Examples of
entailed relations are coordination (e.g., nam-
ing, similarity, identity, sameness), opposition,
distinction, comparison, hierarchical relations,
temporal relations, spatial relations, condition-
ality/causality, and deictic relations. We speak
of the transformation of stimulus function when
the stimulus acquires a new function by virtue
of its relation to other stimuli or events (e.g., dis-
33
criminative, reinforcing, punishing). A network
of relations may develop among elements of
the stimuli so framed. Conditional contextual
stimuli may further modify the nature of the
relation or stimulus function as it participates
in a frame or a relational network. For RFT,
verbal behavior may therefore be understood as
the action of framing events relationally. Verbal
stimuli have an effect because they participate in
relational frames (e.g., Hayes, Barnes-Holmes,
& Roche, 2001, pp. 43-44). Stimulus equiva-
lence, an earlier topic of investigation, may be
understood as concerned with specific cases of
derived relational responding. What is called
symmetry in the vocabulary of stimulus equiva-
lence is one kind of mutually entailed relation;
there are others. What is called transitivity
in the vocabulary of stimulus equivalence is
one kind of combinatorially entailed relation;
there are others. In summary, the general term
“derived relational responding” emphasizes that
responding is not the result of direct experiences
that can be traced to a history of reinforce-
ment involving the stimuli in question, or to
formal similarity between or among the stimuli.
Rather, the responding may be understood as
a function of more generalized and abstract
relations between and among classes that come
about through the arbitrary (i.e., nonformal,
conventional) practices of a verbal community.
How Does Derived Relational Responding
Come About?
As operant behavior, verbal behavior devel-
ops according to the contingencies imposed by
the verbal community. For RFT, those con-
tingencies involve multiple exemplar training.
For example, a child may learn through direct
experience to say that John is older than Mary.
The child may then learn again through direct
experience to say that Mary is younger than
John. Now suppose the child learns through
direct experience to say that Paul is older than
Sue. The child can presumably now state the
mutually entailed relation that Sue is younger
than Paul. Reinforcement from the verbal
community across several examples has been
effective. If the child learns through direct
34 Jay Moore
experience that Tom is older than John, and
Sarah is younger than Sue, the child can now
state the combinatorially entailed relations that
Sue is younger than Tom, and that Sarah is
younger than Paul.
With regard to transformation of function,
suppose an adult red wine drinker favors the
bold, hard-hitting flavor of syrah but is unfa-
miliar with shiraz. Upon learning that shiraz
is an Australian equivalent of the French syrah,
then name brands associated with shiraz, as
well as an unopened bottle of shiraz itself, may
take on a new function in the adult’s life, even
though the adult has not had any direct experi-
ence with shiraz.
Verbal behavior doesn’t cause derived
relational responding. Rather, both verbal
behavior and other forms of complex respond-
ing based on derived relations are caused by
contingencies involving multiple exemplars.
These other forms of complex responding may
include equivalence, performance on RFT tasks
in laboratory experiments, psychopathology,
verbal regulation, and what is called cognition
more generally. The responding is said to be
generalized higher-order operant behavior, as
part of an overarching or generalized operant
class. The phenomenon bears at least superfi-
cial resemblance to the process of generalized
imitation (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche,
2001, pp. 23-26).
We may now turn to data that speak to the
generality of the RFT account of verbal behav-
ior and other forms of higher-order behavior
designated in the vernacular as “cognition.” We
do not intend this paper to be a review of all
studies, or to constitute a “box-score analysis” of
how many studies can be interpreted as support-
ing RFT versus how many opposing. Rather, we
review selected studies in an effort to highlight
what we believe to be important issues in the
study the relation among RFT, verbal behavior,
and other forms of sophisticated responding
linked with verbal processes.
Data From Participants with
Developmental Disabilities
We start by examining data from par-
ticipants with developmental disabilities. Lan-
guage rehabilitation programs are often aimed
at these populations, in an effort to promote
verbal self-sufficiency. Indeed, the study of
equivalence relations as an important feature
of verbal behavior grew out of such programs.
If behavior needs to involve the principles of
RFT to be genuinely verbal, then it stands to
reason that training involving derived relational
responding is indeed a useful component of a
language rehabilitation program. In addition,
data from these populations may allow an as-
sessment of the processes, developmental or
otherwise, that are held to underlie derived rela-
tional responding (e.g., Hayes, Barnes-Holmes,
& Roche, 2001, chapter 9).
In one such study, Devany, Hayes, and
Nelson (1986) explicitly studied the relation
between language use and stimulus equivalence.
As they reported in their abstract, children
were assigned to one of three groups: nor-
mally developing preschoolers, children with
a developmental disability who used speech
or signs spontaneously and appropriately,
and children with a developmental disability
who did not. All children were then taught a
series of four related conditional discrimina-
tions and subsequently tested to determine if
classes of equivalent stimuli had formed. All of
the language‑able children (normal as well as
those with a developmental disability) formed
equivalence classes. In contrast, none of the
language‑disabled children did so. The authors
concluded that even though the exact nature of
the relation between stimulus equivalence and
language remains to be clarified, their results
supported the view that stimulus equivalence
is a phenomenon with direct relevance to the
development of language.
However, other studies involving par-
ticipants with developmental disabilities have
found somewhat different results. For example,
Carr, Wilkinson, Blackman, and McIlvane
(2000) reported two studies in which individu-
als with severe mental retardation and minimal
verbal repertoires were tested for equivalence
classes. Readers may recall conjectures to the
effect that performance on equivalence tasks is
linked with language repertoires (e.g., Hayes,
 Relational responding
Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001 p. 160). In one
study, three individuals learned several match-
ing‑to‑sample performances: matching picture
comparison stimuli to dictated‑word sample
stimuli (AB), matching those same pictures to
printed letter samples (CB), and also matching
the pictures to nonrepresentative forms (DB).
On subsequent tests, all individuals immedi-
ately displayed new relations AC, AD, BC, BD,
CD, and DC, together constituting a positive
demonstration of the formation of equivalence
relations. A second study also found equiva-
lence in one of two individuals with similarly
minimal verbal repertoires. Taken together,
these studies question whether equivalence
classes are demonstrable only in individuals with
well‑developed language repertoires.
In an even more recent study, Wilkinson,
Rosenquist, and McIlvane (2009) evaluated
the formation of simple symbolic categories
from initial learning to specific dictated word-
picture relations through derived relations. The
participants were 10 individuals with several
intellectual or language limitations. Three ex-
perimental categories were constructed, each
containing one spoken word (category A),
one photograph (category B), and one visual-
graphic lexigram (category C). Exclusion-based
learning procedures were then used to teach
first the three auditory-visual relations (A-B),
and then the three visual-visual relations (B-
C). Seven participants acquired these rela-
tions. These participants then demonstrated
virtually error-free performances on C-B and
A-C derived relations. With regard to applied
matters, the study helped to define a useful and
productive path for systematic instruction in
symbolic functioning for persons with intel-
lectual and language disabilities. With regard
to more theoretical matters, the authors point
out that their study adds to the growing body
of findings that question the close relation be-
tween language development and the capacity
to exhibit emergent stimulus-stimulus relations
characterized by stimulus equivalence (p. 200).
Data From Typically Developing Children
We next examine data from typically de-
35
veloping children. As they described in their
abstract, Lipkens, Hayes, and Hayes (1993, p.
201) gave a normally developing child a series
of experiences relevant to derived relational
responding as the child developed from the
age of 16 months to 27 months. In conjunc-
tion with these experiences, they also tested the
child for the derivation of relations. In four
longitudinal studies the child was (a) taught to
match names to pictures or pictures to names
and was tested for derived mutually entailed
relations, (b) tested for retention of trained
and derived relations after a 2‑week delay and
for derived mutually entailed relations after a
1‑week delay from training, (c) taught to match
sounds to pictures and names to pictures and
tested for derived mutually entailed relations
and name‑sound and sound‑name combinato-
rially entailed relations, and (d) tested for the
matching of a novel picture to a novel name and
for subsequent naming of the novel excluded
picture. The subject demonstrated mutually
entailed relations as early as 17 months. Com-
binatorially entailed relations emerged later. The
authors concluded that their findings supported
the view that derivation of relations does not
depend on sophisticated verbal abilities, and
was consistent with expectations based on RFT.
Another study is Luciano, Gomez Becerra,
and Rodriguez-Valverde (2007). As they de-
scribed in their abstract, they conducted three
studies that attempted to analyze the impact of
multiple‑exemplar training on the emergence of
visual–visual equivalence relations and recep-
tive symmetry with a very young child named
Gloria. Gloria was described as a healthy,
happy, restless, and curious child who showed
no evidence of receptive symmetry or naming
when tested at the age of 15 months 24 days (15
m 24 d). In the first study, multiple‑exemplar
training in immediate and delayed receptive
symmetry or listener behavior (from object–
sound to immediate and delayed sound–object
selection) proceeded for one month with 10
different objects. This training was followed,
at 16 m 25 d, by a second test conducted with
six new objects. Gloria showed generalized re-
ceptive symmetry with a 3‑hr delay. However,
no evidence of naming with new objects was
36 Jay Moore
found. A second study with Gloria began when
she was 17 m. The aim of this study was to
establish derived visual–visual equivalence rela-
tions using a matching‑to‑sample format with
two comparisons. Visual–visual equivalence
responding emerged at 19 m, although Gloria
still did not show evidence of naming. A third
study with Gloria was then carried out when she
was between 22 m and 23 m 25 d. This study
used a three‑comparison matching‑to‑sample
procedure to establish visual–visual equivalence.
Equivalence responding emerged as in the sec-
ond study, and naming emerged by the end of
the third study, after over a month of further
training experiences. The authors stated that
these data suggest the relation between extant
verbal skills and derived relational responding
differs from that ordinarily found in the main-
stream RFT literature.
Data on Monolinguals and Bilinguals, and
Correlations Between Derived Relational
Responding and Scores on IQ Tests
Other relevant data can be found in stud-
ies with participants who are already verbally
competent. Of particular interest are compari-
sons of the performances of monolinguals and
bilinguals on RFT laboratory tasks, as well as
the correlations between those performances
and scores on IQ tests (for discussion of the
relevance of RFT to intellectual development,
particularly “verbal intelligence,” see Hayes,
Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001, pp. 160 ff.).
In an important study, O’Hora, Pelaez,
and Barnes-Holmes (2005) first determined
whether students were monolingual or bilin-
gual. They next exposed these participants to a
complex relational task (i.e., an empirical model
of instructional control), taken from O’ Hora,
Barnes‑Holmes, Roche, & Smeets (2004).
Finally, they examined the participants on the
vocabulary, arithmetic, and digit‑symbol encod-
ing subtests of the WAIS‑III. On the basis of a
language examination, the researchers classified
26 students as monolingual, and 49 as bilingual.
When participants were exposed to the complex
relational task, 31 students successfully com-
pleted it, and 44 did not. When participants
were examined on the subtests of the WAIS,
the scores on the vocabulary and arithmetic
subtests of the 31 students who completed the
task were significantly higher than the scores of
the 44 participants who failed. However, the
scores on the digit‑symbol encoding subtest of
the students who successfully completed the
relational task did not differ significantly from
those who didn’t. Post‑hoc statistical analyses
found a low but significant correlation between
the vocabulary and arithmetic scores and the
percentage of correct responses emitted in one
particular training phase of the relational task.
However, overall performances of monolingual
and bilingual participants did not differ signifi-
cantly on either the relational task or the WAIS
subtests. The authors interpreted their findings
as supporting the position that a behavioral
account of language must be informed by the
literature on derived relational responding.
Data on Covariance of Elements of the RFT
Repertoire
As reviewed in Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and
Roche (2001, e.g., pp. 31 ff.), some studies have
shown derived responding and transformation
of stimulus function with respect to condi-
tioned reinforcement, discrimination, elicited
conditioned emotional responses, extinction,
and even self-discrimination. Indeed, derived
responding and the transformation of stimulus
functions within a network are the very heart
of RFT. We can now review three other studies
examining whether the elements of the RFT
repertoire systematically covary in speakers
who are already verbally competent. In the
first study, Pilgrim and Galizio (1990) began
by training two, three‑member equivalence
classes (A1-B1-C1 and A2-B2-C2) with five
college students as participants. One or more
of the reinforcement contingencies controlling
baseline conditional discriminations were then
changed. AC relations were either reversed (i.e.,
choosing C2 was reinforced and C1 punished
when A1 was the sample; choosing C1 was
reinforced and C2 punished when A2 was the
sample) or arranged randomly (i.e., choosing
C2 and C1 were reinforced and punished
 Relational responding
equally often in the presence of A1 and A2).
In a third condition, the original AB and AC
relations were reversed. The results showed
that although baseline conditional discrimina-
tion performances were under the control of
reinforcement contingencies, and performances
on symmetry trials (i.e., mutual entailment)
varied with baseline responding for three of
four participants when contingencies were
reversed, performances on transitivity probes
(i.e., combinatorial entailment) remained con-
sistent with the initial equivalence class. These
inconsistencies between probe and baseline
performances were striking because baseline
conditional discriminations are thought to
determine equivalence class performance.
Similarly, the contrast between performances
on symmetry and transitivity probes was of
theoretical interest because equivalence classes
are defined by congruent patterns of respond-
ing on probe trials (see also Fields et al., 1992).
In a second study, Pilgrim and Galizio
(1995) similarly trained two four‑member
equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1-D1 and A2-
B2-C2-D2) again with five college students as
participants. They then gave the participants
a series of further training experiences involv-
ing the relations. These experiences included
a reversal of the baseline conditional discrimi-
nations (i.e., choosing D2 was reinforced and
D1 punished given Sample A1; choosing D1
was reinforced and D2 punished given Sample
A2), the delayed introduction of CD/DC
transitivity/equivalence probes, DE conditional
discrimination training, a second baseline con-
ditional discrimination reversal (i.e., choosing
C2 was reinforced given B1, etc.), and a return
to original baseline reinforcement contingen-
cies. Their results showed that performances on
baseline and symmetry probes were extremely
sensitive to baseline modifications. However,
performances on transitivity/equivalence probes
remained predominantly consistent with the
originally established equivalence classes, al-
though there were exceptions on some E probe
relations for two participants. They concluded
that the dissociation between baseline and sym-
metry versus transitivity/equivalence patterns is
not easily accounted for by current models of
37
equivalence phenomena or relational framing
processes.
In a third study, which is related to Pilgrim
and Galizio (1990), Pilgrim, Chambers, and
Galizio (1995) used 5- to 7-year old children
as participants. As they reported in their
abstract, the children first learned two con-
ditional discriminations (i.e., A1-B1, A2-B2,
A1-C1, and A2-C2) in a two‑choice arbitrary
match‑to‑sample task. After this training, two,
three‑member equivalence classes emerged (A1-
B1-C1 and A2-B2-C2). Baseline conditional
discrimination performances were quickly
controlled by reversals of the AC reinforce-
ment contingencies (i.e., choosing comparison
stimulus C2 was reinforced given sample A1,
and choosing C1 was reinforced given sample
A2) when the reversals were introduced in
restricted baselines. On reflexivity, symmetry,
and transitivity/equivalence probes following
the reversal, there was some limited indication
of equivalence‑class reorganization (i.e., A1-
B1-C2 and A2-B2-C1) in keeping with the
concurrently performed baseline relations for
two of five participants, but the predominant
pattern across probe trials was one of inconsis-
tent conditional control. These findings suggest
that, given similar challenges, equivalence‑class
performances may be even more easily disrupted
in young children than in adults.
Data From Procedural Variations
Some data may now be considered from
research in which features of the experimental
procedure are varied. The point is that if equiva-
lence or derived relational responding varies
systematically when aspects of the training or
testing procedure are varied, then perhaps those
procedural variations reveal something critical
about the relation between training histories
and the demonstration of equivalence. Speci-
fication of those training histories would then
seem directly relevant to the existence, analysis,
and understanding of any underlying processes
(e.g., see discussion in Saunders et al., 1993,
as to whether equivalence is “underanalyzed”).
For example, research has investigated
whether equivalence varies when the order in
38 Jay Moore
which baseline training and testing for emergent
relations (i.e., symmetry, transitivity, equiva-
lence) is manipulated. In this regard, three com-
mon training-testing protocols are the simple-
to-complex protocol, the complex-to-simple
protocol, and the simultaneous protocol. With
a simple-to-complex protocol, participants are
first directly trained in one conditional relation
(e.g., AB), then tested for symmetry (e.g., BA).
Participants are then directly trained in a second
conditional relation (e.g., BC) and tested for
symmetry (e.g., CB). Finally, participants are
tested for transitivity (e.g., AC) and for com-
bined symmetry-transitivity (e.g., CA). With
a complex-to-simple protocol, participants are
first directly trained in all conditional relations.
They are then tested for symmetry, transitivity,
and combined symmetry-transitivity in that or-
der. With a simultaneous protocol, participants
are first directly trained in all conditional rela-
tions. They are then tested for symmetry, transi-
tivity, and combined symmetry-transitivity in a
random order. Fields and colleagues (e.g., Fields
et al., 1997) have found a high percentage of
participants demonstrated equivalence relations
with the simple-to-complex protocol but only
a low percentage with a simultaneous protocol.
A further procedural variation is whether
training involves a linear series design, a many-
to-one design, or a one-to-many design. With
a linear series design, participants are directly
trained with AB and BC conditional discrimi-
nations before testing for equivalence. With a
many-to-one design, participants are directly
trained with AB and CB conditional discrimi-
nations before testing. With a one-to-many
design, participants are directly trained with
AB and AC conditional discriminations before
testing. Arntzen and Holth (1997) found the
one-to-many design to be the most effective in
demonstrating equivalence. With a linear series
training design, they found the probability of
experimenter-defined equivalence class forma-
tion may not even exceed chance.
A more complex example of procedural
variations is Rodriguez-Valverde, Luciano,
and Barnes-Holmes (2009). In this study,
participants were first trained in a condi-
tional discrimination procedure (one-to-many
protocol) that led to the emergence of two,
4-member equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1-D1
and A2-B2-C2-D2). After a mild electrical
shock was paired with stimulus B1, partici-
pants did not exhibit a conditioned emotional
response to other members of the equivalence
class. These results failed to replicate Dougher
et al. (1994), which had earlier shown that
after a related manipulation, participants did
exhibit a conditioned emotional response to
other members of the equivalence class. Then
Rodriguez-Valverde, Luciano, and Barnes-
Holmes manipulated several features of the
experimental procedure. For instance, direct
respondent conditioning was carried out with
several members of each class, instead of just
one member. This time, participants did exhibit
the transformation of respondent function with
other members of the equivalence class. Again,
procedural features needed to be identified in
order to properly understand when equivalence
did and did not occur.
A final important study we may consider
is Holth and Arntzen (2000). This study ex-
panded on earlier reports showing that laten-
cies to respond on equivalence test trials were
noticeably longer than latencies on conditional
discrimination trials during training (e.g., Arn-
tzen & Holth, 1997; Spenser & Chase, 1996;
Wulfert & Hayes, 1988). Holth and Arntzen
began by directly training conditional discrimi-
nations using a favorable one-to-many protocol.
After the conditional discriminations had been
established, Holth and Arntzen then explicitly
required college-student participants to respond
with a very short latency on equivalence test
trials. If participants did not respond in time,
the trial was terminated and participants were
returned to the training protocol. Holth and
Arntzen found that on a majority of trials,
participants did not respond before the time
limit elapsed. When participants did respond,
they did not reliably exhibit equivalence, even
though they had performed appropriately on
the baseline conditional discriminations.
As Holth and Arntzen (2000) point out,
these results question assumptions that stimulus
equivalence is a basic process that “emerges” au-
tomatically and immediately as a consequence
 Relational responding
of a certain training history. Holth and Arntzen
concluded that “Even a perfectly maintained
baseline with respect to the prerequisite con-
ditional discriminations does not ensure the
emergence of experimenter-predicted emergent
performances in accord with equivalence” (p.
331). That response latencies increased during
equivalence testing presumably implies that
participants were doing something different
on test as compared with training trials. That
equivalence was not demonstrated when trials
terminated after a short period of time without
a response presumably implies that the trial
interrupted the “something” they were doing,
preventing them from completing it. At issue
is what that something is. Holth and Arntzen
suggested the possibility of “precurrent” re-
sponding. We discuss this possibility and others
in a later section.
Analysis of Studies
We may now comment more extensively on
the implication of the studies reviewed above
for the generality and indeed validity of RFT.
Where possible, expectations based on our
straightforward interpretation of RFT will be
offered, although we recognize that on the basis
of past evidence, such as reviews of the RFT
book, RFT advocates typically suggest conclu-
sions about their position offered by others,
particularly when they are critical, are in error.
We begin with data from populations with
developmental disabilities. To be sure, com-
parison across participants with developmental
disabilities in these studies is difficult because
the variance among the existing repertoires of
participants can be great. For example, the
participants may have had widely varying expe-
riences with language, both from being spoken
to by others and from their own behavior, how-
ever limited or idiosyncratic those experiences
might have been. As a prelude, we acknowledge
that Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche (2001,
p. 151) sketched a representative sequence of
43 milestones for the development of derived
relational responding, based on a typical train-
ing history. Atypical training histories might
well exist in populations with developmental
39
disabilities. Nevertheless, the data suggest the
correlation among language, derived relational
responding, and developmental level may not
be as high as originally thought. Although
Devany, Hayes, and Nelson (1986) do show
derived relational responding does correlate ap-
propriately with a verbal repertoire, other stud-
ies reviewed above show it does not. If derived
relational responding is as tightly linked with
verbal behavior as RFT advocates suggest when
they tout the superiority of their approach, then
it seems to us that question can legitimately be
raised as to why the other studies have shown
that relational responding is not more positively
correlated with verbal behavior.
We move next to data from typically devel-
oping children. Hayes (1994) among others has
interpreted the outcome of Lipkens, Hayes, and
Hayes (1993) as consistent with expectations
based on RFT. Similarly, RFT advocates may
claim the outcome of Luciano, Gomez Becerra,
and Rodriguez-Valverde (2007) with Gloria is
consistent with RFT. At issue is whether it is
legitimate to so claim. In principle, it seems to
us that the essential features of RFT (mutual
entailment, combinatorial entailment, trans-
formation of function, as reflected in verbal
behavior and contrived RFT laboratory tasks)
should at some point covary in the repertoires
of individuals. If a participant exhibits some
features of the repertoire, it follows that the
participant must have had sufficient exposure
to multiple exemplar training to establish the
other appropriate features of RFT. In other
words, a child should be far enough along in the
list of 43 steps in Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and
Roche (2001, p. 151) that the vast proportion
of features should be present–after all, that’s
what being verbally competent means. We
point out that Carr, Wilkinson, Blackman, and
McIlvane (2000) gave equivalence training to
participants with developmental disabilities.
Even though these individuals had minimal
verbal repertoires, they exhibited equivalence.
However, for Gloria, important aspects of the
RFT repertoire do not all seem to be present.
It took something over a month of further
training to establish naming, even though other
aspects of equivalence were present much earlier.
40 Jay Moore
Perhaps some additional experiences occurred
during this period. In any case, this outcome
suggests a disparity wherein the critical features
of derived relational responding do not neces-
sarily covary.
We move next to data comparing mono-
linguals and bilinguals (O’Hora, Pelaez, &
Barnes-Holmes, 2005) . At issue is whether
it is reasonable to expect bilinguals to perform
at a higher level than monolinguals on RFT
laboratory tasks. Our position is that such
an expectation is in fact reasonable. Presum-
ably, bilingualism involves exactly the kind
of tasks that RFT deems critical. If so, then
performances of bilinguals should be generally
superior to those of monolinguals. However,
the data suggest the performances of bilinguals
are comparable, rather than superior.
Similarly, at issue is whether we can reason-
ably expect the correlations between perfor-
mance on RFT laboratory tasks and scores on
the verbal components of a standard IQ test to
be highly positive (O’Hora, Pelaez, & Barnes-
Holmes, 2005). Again, our position is that
such an expectation is reasonable. Presumably,
the environments of the individuals taking
these tests have encouraged the development
of flexible thinking and other intellectual skills
associated with “being smart.” This reper-
toire should in turn be highly correlated with
performance on laboratory tasks that require
relational framing, as both are concerned with
the same aspects of a repertoire (see Hayes,
Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001, pp. 160 ff.).
Although the correlations between performance
on laboratory tasks and scores on the vocabulary
and arithmetic subtests were consistent with
this expectation, correlations with the scores
on the digit-symbol test were not. This result is
surprising, as the digit-symbol test seems most
closely related to relational framing and derived
relational responding.
A possible RFT rejoinder re IQ tests is that
they are at best merely imperfect measures of
verbal and intellectual repertoires established
via developmental training. If so, it follows that
the nature of demands posed in RFT lab task
are actually better measures of individual dif-
ferences in verbal and intellectual performance
than IQ tests. Empirical validation of this
post-hoc claim awaits.
A further matter concerns between-subject
variability. A casual inspection of research ar-
ticles employing RFT laboratory tasks suggests a
very large number of verbally competent partici-
pants fail to acquire the target behavior. Often
data from these subjects is simply dismissed in
reports in the literature. For example, O’Hora,
Pelaez, and Barnes-Holmes (2005) found 31
participants acquired their relational task, but
44 did not. When between-subject variance is
this high, one wonders about the validity of the
premise that RFT laboratory tasks reveal pro-
cesses that lie at the heart of verbal behavior and
the general intellectual functioning popularly
called cognition.
We can now move to a final consideration,
namely, whether the elements of the RFT
repertoire covary in prescribed ways in partici-
pants who are already verbally competent. It
follows that if what RFT says is correct about
equivalence, derived relational responding, the
transformation of function, relational frames,
and relational networks, then the elements of
the RFT repertoire should systematically covary
in verbally competent speakers: mutual entail-
ment, combinatorial entailment, and transfor-
mation of function. Presumably, speakers who
are already verbally competent have already
experienced the necessary degree of multiple-
exemplar training to possess the repertoires
required by RFT, otherwise they would not be
verbally competent in the first place. Those
repertoires require covariation, which is to say
high positive correlations across elements: To
use the language of stimulus equivalence, if
already verbally competent speakers exhibit the
relation called symmetry, then so also should
they exhibit the relation called transitivity.
In other words, it seems to us that from
the standpoint of RFT, individuals exhibit in-
stances of sophisticated intellectual repertoires
and are verbally competent because one way
or another they have experienced the necessary
degree of (e.g., multiple exemplar) training from
verbal community during their lifetimes. This
training has produced frames regarding mu-
tual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and
 Relational responding
transformation of function. To be sure, some
individuals may have had better training than
others, resulting in stronger repertoires, but all
must have some minimum level of training that
necessarily and universally provides the foun-
dation for the development of the repertoires
in question and for being verbally competent.
Readers will recall that Pilgrim and Galizio
(1990), Pilgrim and Galizio (1995), and Pil-
grim, Chambers, and Galizio (1995) explicitly
investigated the extent to which transitivity
covaried with symmetry in an equivalence task.
Participants in these studies were already verbal-
ly competent: Participants were college students
in the first and second studies, and children in
the third. It seems to us that if participants in
RFT laboratory tasks are already verbally com-
petent when they participate in the experiment,
then mutual entailment (e.g. symmetry), com-
binatorial entailment (e.g., transitivity), and
transformation of function should necessarily
and universally co‑vary for these participants,
unless specific operations (e.g., contextual) are
in effect to dictate otherwise in designated cases.
Again, this research found that when baseline
conditions were modified, symmetry changed
but transitivity did not. The authors concluded
that symmetry and transitivity did not covary
in the ways expected on the basis of RFT (see
also Fields et al., 1992).
Research involving procedural variations
strongly suggests derived relational responding
consists of component processes. Otherwise,
the procedural variations would not influence
the demonstration of equivalence or derived
relational responding in the observed ways. In
any event, this is not an appeal to mentalism
and the mediationism of cognitive psychol-
ogy, any more than talking to oneself is an
appeal to mentalism and the mediationism of
cognitive psychology. Rather, the point is that
procedural variations such as those reviewed
here may be understood as tools to investigate
whether something unappreciated but never-
theless behavioral is going on in research on
equivalence or derived relational responding. If
participants do something in response to these
variations that influences the demonstration of
equivalence, then it can be known about and
41
studied. However, researchers have to recognize
that questions about whether something unap-
preciated but nevertheless behavioral is going
on are legitimate.
With regard to these matters, Hayes, Barnes-
Holmes, and Roche (2001) commented as
follows:
It is expected that these units [mutual entail-
ment, combinatorial entailment, and transfor-
mation of stimulus functions] may not always
covary and specific contingencies may break
them apart or pull them together... For the
purposes of our analysis, a relational frame is a
“unit” for two primary reasons: it seems to be
the simplest unit that can describe the key ele-
ments of speaking with meaning and listening
with understanding..... We do not believe that
relational frames are “primitives” or “elemental
units” however.... The flexibility of operants is
one of their hallmarks. Several studies show that
relations among an equivalence class are quite
changeable, and even once formed, relations
among stimuli in a class may change individu-
ally or en masse depending on conditions. For
example, having provided training sufficient to
generate equivalence classes, .... if we change only
a small number of baseline discriminations, some
of the derived relations will change while others
will remain intact.... This would be expected
from the point of view of RFT. (pp. 34, 41-42)
The passage above strikes us as entirely post-
hoc. It makes RFT unassailable, by saying that
all possible outcomes are consistent with RFT.
If behavior changes, then that result is consistent
with RFT, but if behavior doesn’t change, then
that result is consistent, too. Strange reasoning,
that, in light of the avowed functional contex-
tualist principle of a pragmatic truth criterion
with prediction and influence of events as a
single integrated goal. Ironically, the reasoning
appeals to mechanistic conceptions of behavior
and to correspondence as a truth criterion, to
which RFT says it stands opposed.
Summary and Conclusions
RFT advocates argue that their accounts of
verbal behavior, equivalence, performance on
derived relational responding tasks in labora-
42 Jay Moore
tory experiments, psychopathology, verbal
regulation, and what is called cognition more
generally, are superior to any other account,
particularly any account linked to Skinner’s
Verbal Behavior. It follows from RFT accounts
that any time already verbally competent par-
ticipants are in an experiment that involves an
equivalence or RFT task, they should neces-
sarily and universally show a high percentage
of the various features of derived relational
responding, by virtue of already being verbally
competent (i.e., by virtue of already having the
necessary history of multiple exemplar training
that has led to the development of the relational
frames that have made them verbally compe-
tent). As noted in the review, although the
various features of derived relational responding
do covary for some participants, they do not
for many others, either between participants
(e.g., high percentage of verbally competent
participants–44 of 75--who failed to acquire
the relational task: O’Hora, Pelaez, & Barnes-
Holmes, 2005; routine and deliberate disregard
in studies of verbally competent participants
who fail to acquire the baseline RFT task) or
within (failure of transitivity to covary with
symmetry, and other failures of covariation:
Fields et al., 1992; Pilgrim & Galizio, 1990,
1995; Pilgrim, Chambers, & Galizio, 1995).
To be sure, RFT advocates can easily iden-
tify some data from some participants in some
studies that differ from the data reviewed above.
Moreover, Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche
(2001, pp. 41 ff.) have already claimed that
diverse results are to be expected from the point
of view of RFT. However, the validity of this
claim is not at all clear. That relational framing
might develop according to some sequence of
developmental experiences is not at issue. Of
course it does. What is at issue is that for speak-
ers who are already verbally competent, the
necessary repertoire of relational framing and
derived relational responding should already be
in place, such that responding on RFT tasks and
verbal behavior should covary in some general
and uniform sense. They clearly do not. It fol-
lows, then, that RFT is not the answer it claims
to be. It may contribute to an answer for some
participants, but it is neither the whole nor only
answer. We agree with Palmer (2004): “[M]
uch more detail is required about the variability
of the history and its relation to variability in
behavior” (pp. 195-196).
A further troublesome issue regarding RFT
is the vocabulary. One concern is the nature
of “deriving” and “relating.” In many of their
expository treatments, RFT advocates treat de-
riving and relating as some sort of prebehavioral
activity: There is first the deriving or relating,
and then subsequently there is speaking or re-
sponding. Deriving or relating is portrayed as
something else that is responsible for behavior,
rather than as an early link in a chain. This sort
of conceptual approach has proved troublesome
in the past, as it is an invitation to mentalism.
A second and related concern is the frequent
use of the word cognition (e.g., Hayes, Barnes-
Holmes, & Roche, 2001, p. 144). To be sure,
both casual and professional writing are often
under audience control, reflecting that speakers
or writers will use different words with different
audiences. In casual speech, even radical behav-
iorists say they change their minds, when they
recognize that literally they do not have minds
to change, and that their choice of words reflects
other considerations. Perhaps use of cognition
in the RFT literature reflects nothing more
than the attempt to “get the message across”
with a nontechnical, non-behavior-analytic
vocabulary. At issue is whether the current
RFT vocabulary surrenders too much to the
vernacular, and by so doing, invites mentalism.
We think so. It is all to easy to invoke derived
relational responding, relational frames, and so
on as “evidence” of cognition, or as the “mea-
sure” of cognition. Cognition then becomes
some nonbehavioral activity in a nonbehavioral
dimension that precedes and causes behavior.
Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche seek to
defuse concerns by arguing that “cognizing is
relating.... Cognition is not a mental event, it
is a behavioral event” (p. 145). Regrettably,
however, this treatment is muddled, as it el-
evates “cognizing” to some causally effective
antecedent process that is itself not behavioral.
Readers may note that Palmer (2004) similarly
commented on conceptual difficulties with the
vocabulary of RFT.
 Relational responding
The present recapitulation brings us to the
very definition of verbal (see also Palmer, 2008,
and Normand, 2009, for a thorough evaluation
of the definition of verbal behavior). Readers
will recall that RFT advocates make much of
the superiority of their definitional approach,
and return to this matter time and again as the
basis for their position. To our way of thinking,
they adopt an essentialist approach when they
say that behavior is verbal if and only if it en-
tails framing events relationally (see Normand,
2009, for similar discussion). They contrast
their definition with Skinner’s (1957) initial
statement that talked of “verbal behavior as
behavior reinforced through the mediation of
other persons” (p. 2). Less conspicuous in their
treatments is that Skinner then acknowledged
his provisional definition needed certain refine-
ments, which were provided later:
To say that we are interested only in behavior
which has an effect upon the behavior of an-
other individual does not go far enough, for the
definition embraces all social behavior.... If we
make the provision that the “listener” must be
responding in ways which have been conditioned
precisely in order to reinforce the behavior of
the speaker, we narrow our subject to what is
traditionally recognized as the verbal field. (pp.
224-225)
Skinner’s refined definition clearly acknowl-
edges the importance of going beyond social
behavior, and including a listener who has a
history that involves reinforcing the behavior
of the speaker. As such, it seems consistent
with what RFT advocates argue about verbal
behavior nearly 50 years later but claim as
their own unique insights (cf. Barnes-Holmes,
Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2001).
The passages cited from Skinner (1957) at
the beginning of this article are from a chapter
on the autoclitic. Autoclitic processes involve
a speaker who modifies the effect of ongoing
verbal behavior. Autoclitic processes are occa-
sioned by a speaker’s own discriminative verbal
behavior, rather than some object or property of
the environment. This concept seems entirely
consistent with what RFT advocates identify as
important when they talk of relating or deriv-
ing, rather than properties of stimulus objects
43
in environment (for example, see discussion in
Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001, p. 27).
Similarly Skinner (1957) talks of abstraction as
“peculiarly a verbal process because a nonver-
bal environment cannot provide the necessary
restricted contingency” (p. 109). Once again,
Skinner’s approach is consistent with what RFT
advocates identified 50 years later.
Further, RFT advocates make much of
“arbitrarily applicable relational responding.”
Presumably, what arbitrarily applicable rela-
tional responding signifies is responding based
on the conventional practices of a verbal com-
munity, as distinguished from responding that
could be interpreted as controlled by histories of
direct reinforcement involving absolute stimu-
lus properties. Again, Skinner commented in
numerous cases about the importance of un-
derstanding conventional practices in a verbal
community:
The “languages” studied by the linguist are the
reinforcing practices of verbal communities.”
(Skinner, 1957, p. 461).
Different verbal communities shape and main-
tain different languages in the same speaker,
who then possesses different repertoires having
similar effects upon different listeners. (Skinner,
1974, p. 92).
As a result, this aspect of Skinner’s perspec-
tive is again consistent with what RFT advocates
argue about verbal behavior 50 years later.
In a more positive vein, it seems to us that
equivalence and derived relational responding
may best be understood as stimulus control ef-
fects. We agree that multiple exemplar respond-
ing is important in the development of that
stimulus control. For example, in a discussion
of abstraction, Skinner (1953) stated that
By reinforcing responses to a circular red spot
while extinguishing response to circular spots of
other colors, we may give the red spot exclusive
control over the behavior.... We have, in other
words, brought the response under the control
of circular red spots but not of the “property of
redness” alone. To achieve the latter, we must
reinforce responses to many objects, all of which
are red, but which differ widely in their other
properties.... There are no “natural” contingen-
cies which reinforce a response in the presence
44 Jay Moore
of a single property without respect to other
properties. The necessary contingency appar-
ently requires the mediation of other organisms.
Abstraction, therefore, appears to have become
possible only with the development of verbal
behavior. (pp. 134-136)
Clearly, equivalence and derived relational
responding are very important stimulus control
effects linked to verbal behavior.
If RFT is not the answer it claims to be, what
then is the answer? RFT explicitly disparages
“associative explanations.” At issue is whether
it is reasonable to do so. For example, Ton-
neau and colleagues (Tonneau & Gonzalez,
2004; Tonneau, Arreola, & Martinez, 2006)
have suggested that Pavlovian processes may
be relevant to understanding behavior similar
to derived relational responding. As Tonneau
and Gonzalez (2004) point out, Honey and
Hall (1989) reported the transfer of discrimi-
native functions from one stimulus to another
with rats as subjects, by virtue of pairing with
a common stimulus. Markham and Markham
(2002) reported an analogous transfer of func-
tion without reinforcement with humans as
participants, based on Pavlovian relations. That
Pavlovian processes can influence operant pro-
cesses is well documented (e.g, Moore, 1986).
One such Pavlovian process could be medi-
ated generalization. A mediated generalization
experiment is typically carried in three phases.
In Phase 1, suppose a tone is sounded, and fol-
lowed shortly thereafter by a light tap on the
cheek sufficient to cause a subject to blink. In
Phase 2, suppose the same light tap on the cheek
is followed shortly thereafter by an electric shock
sufficient to cause an autonomic response. In
Phase 3, suppose we sound the tone from Phase
1. Research of this sort shows that the subject
will show the autonomic response from Phase 2,
even though there has been no formal, directly
experienced relation between tone and shock
that produced the Phase 2 autonomic events.
The standard interpretation of these sorts of
experiments is that the tone causes the blink in
Phase 1, and proprioceptive feedback from the
blink then acquires stimulus control over the
autonomic response by virtue of its relation with
the shock in Phase 2. The tone sets the cascade
of events in motion.
Interestingly, the terminal relations in a
demonstration of mediated generalization are
virtually the same as identified in RFT, although
RFT typically views as mechanistic, and rejects
out of hand, appeals to such devices as mediat-
ing proprioceptive feedback. The possibility of
mediated generalization is relevant because ex-
planations of the various effects in the literature
wouldn’t appeal to new principles. An adequate
understanding of existing principles would suf-
fice. The foregoing is not a claim that mediated
generalization or any other associative process
is the total explanation of derived relational
responding, but rather only a suggestion that
well-known processes could conceivably play a
role. The possibility could be explored empiri-
cally, rather than be dogmatically dismissed.
Another possibility is a chaining process,
perhaps involving covert verbal behavior in
certain cases. Palmer (2004) identified this
possibility in an earlier review. This possibility
is also consistent with the results of Holth and
Arntzen (2000), in which time constraints on
responding disrupted the demonstration of
equivalence in test trials. In their study, perhaps
the “precurrent” behavior that was disrupted
by the termination of a trial was an ongoing
chaining process responsible for equivalence.
Again, no new process may be needed to explain
results of equivalence or RFT laboratory tasks.
The variability in results across experiments may
then be understood as variability in the history
of the participants that contributes to control
by covert events. Of course, whether chaining is
actually involved in derived relational respond-
ing is an empirical question. As Skinner (1953)
commented in one place (we have made minor
changes in the wording of the comments to
make the wording consistent with the present
context) , “There are great individual differences
in the extent to which private [stimulation] is
used..... [S]uch differences may be traced either
to differences in the extent to which [control by
private stimuli] has been established or to dif-
ferences in the ability to describe the resulting
self-stimulation or use it as a basis for further
behavior” (pp. 273-274).
The forms of behavior identified as derived
 Relational responding
relational responding clearly do occur, and they
are clearly linked with verbal behavior. The
present concern is whether derived relational re-
sponding is the only answer to questions about
the nature and causes of verbal behavior. RFT
advocates repeatedly claim that only responding
that shows derived relational responding and
relational framing is verbal. However, it appears
that such a claim is unnecessarily restrictive.
Indeed, it may be counterproductive. To our
way of thinking, enough data suggest other
behavior that meets all the other requirements
of being verbal can occur without the prescribed
features of derived relational responding, and
the presence of derived relational responding
does not guarantee verbal behavior. Thus,
mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment,
transformation of function, and relational fram-
ing don’t covary in necessary and universal ways,
either within or between verbally competent
participants. Is it appropriate for behavior ana-
lysts to be concerned with the relation between
verbal behavior and love, compassion, and
community? Absolutely yes. Is it appropriate
for behavior analysts to be concerned with the
relation between verbal behavior and thinking,
reasoning, and problem solving? Absolutely
yes. Is it appropriate for behavior analysts to
be concerned with the relation between verbal
behavior and therapeutic processes and inter-
ventions? Absolutely yes. Is it appropriate for
behavior analysts to do more research on what
are called equivalence and derived relational
responding? Absolutely yes. Is it appropriate
for behavior analysts to claim that “A new day
has dawned” (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche,
2001, p. xii) because the recent flood of research
on equivalence, derived relational responding,
therapeutic processes, and interventions could
only have come after Skinner’s (1957) definition
of verbal behavior was repudiated and a new
definition based on derived relational respond-
ing embraced in a post-Skinnerian world? We
may never know. What we do know is that we
can’t have it both ways. We can’t claim that
derived relational responding uniquely explains
verbal behavior, equivalence, performance on
RFT tasks in laboratory experiments, psycho-
pathology, verbal regulation, and what is called
45
cognition more generally, and then turn around
to claim that the observed lack of covariance
between derived relational responding and
verbal behavior, equivalence, performance on
RFT tasks in laboratory experiments, psycho-
pathology, verbal regulation, and what is called
cognition more generally is to be expected.
References
Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability
of stimulus equivalence as a function of
training design. The Psychological Record,
47, 309-320.
Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Probability
of stimulus equivalence as a function of class
size vs. number of classes. The Psychological
Record, 50, 79-104.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cul-
linan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory
and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: A possible
synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 69-84.
Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., &
McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes
in individuals with minimal verbal reper-
toires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 74, 101‑114.
Devany, J., Hayes, S., & Nelson, R. (1896).
Equivalence class formation in language-able
and language-disabled children. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46,
243-257.
Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M.
R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994).
The transfer of respondent eliciting and ex-
tinction functions through stimulus equiva-
lence classes. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331-351.
Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Newman, S., &
Verhave, T. (1992). Interactions among
emergent relations during equivalence class
formation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 45B, 125-138.
Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Rosen, D., Varelas, S.,
Adams, B. J., Belanich, J. & Hobbie, S. A.
(1997). Using the simultaneous protocol
to study equivalence class formation: The
facilitating effects of nodal number and
size of previously established equivalence
46 Jay Moore
classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 67, 367-389
Hayes, S. (1994). Relational frame theory: A
functional approach to verbal events. In S.
Hayes, L. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.),
Behavior Analysis of Language and Cognition
(pp. 9-30). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Hayes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B.
(2001). Relational frame theory: A post-
Skinnerian account of human language and
cognition. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Hayes, S., & Brownstein, A. (1985, May). Ver-
bal behavior, equivalence classes, and rules:
New definitions, data, and directions. Paper
presented at the convention of the Associa-
tion for Behavior Analysis, Columbus, OH.
Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (2000). Reaction
times and the emergence of class consistent
responding: A case for precurrent respond-
ing? The Psychological Record, 50, 305-337.
Honey, R., & Hall, G. (1989). Acquired
equivalence and the distinctiveness of cues.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal
Behavior Processes, 15, 338-346.
Lipkens, R., Hayes, S., & Hayes, L. (1993).
Longitudinal study of derived stimulus rela-
tions in an infant. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 56, 201-239.
Luciano, C., Gomez Becerra, I., & Rodri-
guez-Valverde, M. (2007). The role of
multiple‑exemplar training and naming
in establishing derived equivalence in an
infant. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 87, 349‑365.
Markham, R., & Markham, M. (2002). On
the role of covarying functions in stimulus
class formation and transfer of function.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-
havior, 78, 376-386.
Moore, J. (1986). On the consequences of con-
ditioning. Psychological Record, 36, 39-61.
Normand, M. (2009). Much ado about noth-
ing? Some comments on B. F. Skinner’s
definition of verbal behavior. The Behavior
Analyst, 32, 185-190.
O’ Hora, D., Barnes‑Holmes, D., Roche, B., &
Smeets, P. (2004). Derived relational net-
works and control by novel instructions: A
possible model of generative verbal respond-
ing. The Psychological Record, 54, 437-450.
O’Hora, D., Pelaez, M., & Barnes-Holmes, D.
(2005). Derived relational responding and
performance on verbal subtests of the WAIS-
III. The Psychological Record, 55, 155-175.
Palmer, D. (2004). Data in search of a prin-
ciple: A review of Relational Frame Theory:
A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human
Language and Cognition. Journal of the Ex-
perimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 189-204.
Palmer, D. (2008). On Skinner’s definition of
verbal behavior. International Journal of Psy-
chology & Psychological Therapy, 8, 295-307.
Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1990). Relations
between baseline contingencies and equiva-
lence probe performances. Journal of the Ex-
perimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 213‑224.
Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of
baseline relations and stimulus equivalence:
I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analy-
sis of Behavior, 63, 225‑238.
Pilgrim, C., Chambers, L., & Galizio, M.
(1995). Reversal of baseline relations and
stimulus equivalence: II. Children. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63,
239‑254.
Rodriguez-Valverde, M., Luciano, C., &
Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Transfer of
aversive respondent elicitation in accordance
with equivalence relations. Journal of the Ex-
perimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 85-111.
Saunders, K. J., Saunders, R. R., Williams, D.
C., & Spradlin, H. E. (1993). An interac-
tion of instructions and training design on
stimulus class formation: Extending the
analysis of equivalence. The Psychological
Record, 43, 725-744.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human
behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New
York: Knopf.
Spenser, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed
analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65,
643-659.
Tonneau, F., & Gonzalez, C. (2004). Func-
tion transfer in human operant experiments.
 Relational responding
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behav-
ior, 81, 239-255.
Tonneau, F., Arreola, F., & Martinez, A. (2006).
Function transformation without reinforce-
ment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 85, 393-405.
Wilkinson, K., Rosenquist, C., & McIlvane, W.
(2009). Exclusion learning and emergent
symbolic category formation in individuals
47
with severe language impairments and intel-
lectual disabilities. The Psychological Record,
59, 187-206.
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). The trans-
fer of conditional ordering response through
conditional equivalence classes. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50,
125-144.