Perspectives on Behavior Science

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 229–240 | Cite as

A Functional-Cognitive Framework for Cooperation Between Functional and Cognitive Researchers in the Context of Stimulus Relations Research

  • Jan De HouwerEmail author


Contrary to the view that behavior analysis and cognitive psychology are two competing, mutually exclusive approaches in psychology, the functional-cognitive framework for research in psychology postulates that these approaches operate at different but related levels of explanation and therefore can interact in mutually beneficial ways. I briefly describe the framework and explore how it can be applied to research on stimulus relations.


Levels of explanation Functional psychology Cognitive psychology 



The preparation of this paper was made possible by Ghent University Grant BOF16/MET_V/002 to Jan De Houwer. I thank Dermot Barnes-Holmes, Sean Hughes, and Yvonne Barnes-Holmes for the many helpful discussions we had about functional-cognitive framework and for guiding me in my contacts with the behavioral community.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Bargh, J. A. (2014). Our unconscious mind. Scientific American, 310, 30–37.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Hussey, I. (2016). The functional-cognitive meta-theoretical framework: reflections, possible clarifications and how to move forward. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 50–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. (2005). The challenge of characterizing operations in the mechanisms underlying behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84, 313–325.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms: philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Bouton, M. E. (2016). Learning and behavior: a contemporary synthesis (2nd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Chiesa, M. (1994). Radical behaviorism: the philosophy and the science. Boston: Authors’ Cooperative.Google Scholar
  7. Christie, S., Gentner, D., Call, J., & Haun, D. B. M. (2016). Sensitivity to relational similarity and object similarity in apes and children. Current Biology, 26, 531–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. De Houwer, J. (2007). A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 230–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 202–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 631–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Houwer, J., & Hughes, S. (2016). Evaluative conditioning as a symbolic phenomenon: on the relation between evaluative conditioning, evaluative conditioning via instructions, and persuasion. Social Cognition, 34, 480–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (in press). What is cognition? A functional-cognitive perspective. In S. C. Hayes and S. G. Hofmann (Eds.), Core Processes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapies. Oakland: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  13. De Houwer, J., & Hughes, S. (in press). Environmental regularities as a concept for carving up the realm of learning research: implications for relational frame theory. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.Google Scholar
  14. De Houwer, J., Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (in press a). Psychological engineering: a functional-cognitive perspective on applied psychology. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.Google Scholar
  15. De Houwer, J., Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (in press b). Bridging the divide between functional and cognitive psychology. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.Google Scholar
  16. Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115, 1–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferry, A. L., Hespos, S. J., & Gentner, D. (2015). Prelinguistic relational concepts: investigating analogical processing in infants. Child Development, 86, 1386–1405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiedler, K. (2016). Functional research and cognitive-process research in behavioural science: an unequal but firmly connected pair. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 64–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner, H. (1987). The mind’s new science: a history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Gentner, D. (2016). Language as cognitive toolkit: how language supports relational thought. American Psychologist, 71, 650–657.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gentner, D., Levine, S. C., Dhillon, S., Ping, R., Bradley, C., Isaia, A., …Honke, G. (2016). Rapid learning in a children’s museum via analogical comparison. Cognitive Science, 40, 224–240Google Scholar
  22. Gentner, D., & Smith, L. A. (2013). Analogical learning and reasoning. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 668–681). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goldsmith, M. (in press). A (meta-)cognitive perspective on the functional-cognitive perspective: the applied value of behaviorally oriented cognitive research and theory. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.Google Scholar
  24. Guinther, P. M., & Dougher, M. J. (2014). Partial contextual control of semantic false memories in the form of derived relational intrusions following training. The Psychological Record, 64, 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (2010). Relational knowledge: the foundation of higher cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 14, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 175–190.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding the philosophical core: a review of Stephen C. Pepper’s world hypotheses: a study in evidence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 97–111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F., & Crombez, G. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Relational frame theory: the basic account. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 129–178). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. (2012). Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: a voyage through implicit cognition. Journal of Contextual Behavioural Science, 1, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hughes, S., De Houwer, J., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). The moderating impact of distal regularities on the effect of stimulus pairings: a novel perspective on evaluative conditioning. Experimental Psychology, 63, 20–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes, S., De Houwer, J., & Perugini, M. (2016). The functional-cognitive framework for psychological research: controversies and resolutions. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 4–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hütter, M., & Fiedler, K. (2016). Conceptual, theoretical, and methodological challenges in evaluative conditioning research. Social Cognition, 34, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jung, W., & Hummel, J. E. (2015). Revisiting Wittgenstein’s puzzle: hierarchical encoding and comparison facilitate learning of probabilistic relational categories. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 110. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00110.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Knowlton, B. J., Morrison, R. G., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). A neurocomputational system for relational reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levey, A. B., & Martin, I. (1975). Classical conditioning of human ‘evaluative’ responses. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 4, 205–207.Google Scholar
  39. Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2016). A functional approach for research on cognitive control: analyzing cognitive control tasks and their effects in terms of operant conditioning. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 28–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 83–99.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Meiser, T. (2011). Much pain, little gain? Paradigm-specific models and methods in experimental psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 183–191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mickes, L. (in press). A case for functional-cognitive cross-talk. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.Google Scholar
  43. Palmer, D. C. (2006). On Chomsky’s appraisal of Skinner’s verbal behavior: a half century of misunderstanding. The Behavior Analyst, 29, 253–267.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Proctor, R., & Xiong, A. (in press). Can cognitive analytic-abstractive research provide a bridge between functional and cognitive psychologists? Commentary on De Houwer, Hughes, and Barnes-Holmes (2017). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.Google Scholar
  46. Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: it’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Reyna, L. J. (Ed.) (1995). Cognition, behavior and causality: a board exchange of views stemming from the debate on the causal efficacy of human thought [Special issue]. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26 (3).Google Scholar
  48. Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Skinner, B. F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American Psychologist, 45, 1206–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slocum, T. A., & Butterfield, E. C. (1994). Bridging the schism between behavioral and cognitive analyses. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 59–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Thibaut, J. P., & French, R. M. (in press). Analogical reasoning, control and executive functions: a developmental investigation with eye-tracking. Cognitive Development.Google Scholar
  52. Watrin, J. P., & Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviorism in the cognitive revolution: myth and reactions. Review of General Psychology, 16, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zentall, T. R. (2001). The case for a cognitive approach to animal learning and behavior. Behavioural Processes, 54, 65–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations