Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 95–105 | Cite as

Reversing Time and Size: Mutual Entailment of Nonarbitrary Temporal and Magnitude Relational Responding

  • Nicola Brassil
  • John HylandEmail author
  • Denis O’Hora
  • Ian Stewart
Original Article

Abstract

Responding to temporal relational statements that include the original events (e.g., A. .. B) in a reversed order (e.g., “B after A”) is less accurate and more time-consuming than responding to such statements when they retain the original order of presentation (e.g., “A before B”). The current study assessed whether this effect was limited to temporal relational responding by estimating the effect of reversal on magnitude statements (e.g., “B bigger than A”) as well as temporal statements. Participants (N = 40) completed temporal and magnitude relational judgement tasks in blocks consisting of a training phase and a testing phase. The order of relational tasks was counterbalanced across participants; participants learned the second type of relational task faster than the first. During testing, reversal of the order of stimuli in both temporal and magnitude relations reduced accuracy and increased response latencies suggesting that the reversal effect was not limited to temporal relations. The findings support the position that a general relational effect, such as mutual entailment, may underlie the increased difficulty of reversed temporal relational statements.

Keywords

Relational frame theory Relational responding Nonarbitrary relations Temporal relations Magnitude relations Sequence 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Regan, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Commins, S., Walsh, D., Stewart, I., ... Dymond, S. (2005). Relating derived relations as a model of analogical reasoning: Reaction times and event-related potentials. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84, 435–451.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2005.79-04.
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
  4. Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & Hayes, S. C. (2011). A relational frame training intervention to raise intelligence quotients: A pilot study. The Psychological Record, 61(2), 173–198.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, E. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 266–275.Google Scholar
  6. Dauer, R. M. (1983). Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics, 11(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
  7. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1994). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251–267.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaeb.1994.62-251.Google Scholar
  8. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the derived stimulus relations of sameness, more than, and less than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163–184.Google Scholar
  9. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1996). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 46(2), 271–300.Google Scholar
  10. Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  11. Harrell, F. E. (2017). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. (R package version 4.0-3). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
  12. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  13. Hyland, J. M., O’ Hora, D. P., Leslie, J. C., & Smyth, S. (2012). Sequential responding in accordance with temporal relational cues: A comparison of “before” and “after”. The Psychological Record, 62(3), 463–484.Google Scholar
  14. Hyland, J. M., Smyth, S., O’ Hora, D. P., & Leslie, J. C. (2014). The effect of before and after instructions on the speed of sequential responding. The Psychological Record, 64(2), 311–319.Google Scholar
  15. Lidji, P., Palmer, C., Peretz, I., & Morningstar, M. (2011). Listeners feel the beat: Entrainment to English and French speech rhythms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1035–1041.Google Scholar
  16. Lipkins, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1993.1032.Google Scholar
  17. Marshuetz, C., Smith, E. E., Jonides, J., DeGutis, J., & Chenevert, T. L. (2000). Order information in working memory: fMRI evidence for parietal and prefrontal mechanisms. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 130–144.Google Scholar
  18. McGreal, C., Hyland, J., O’Hora, D., & Hogan, M. (2016). Mutual entailment of temporal relations in younger and older adults: Reversing order judgments. The Psychological Record, 66(3), 419–428.Google Scholar
  19. Munnelly, A., Dymond, S., & Hinton, E. C. (2010). Relational reasoning with derived comparative relations: A novel model of transitive inference. Behavioral Processes, 85, 8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.05.007.Google Scholar
  20. O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. (2004). Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 437–460.Google Scholar
  21. O’Hora, D., & Maglieri, K. A. (2006). Goal statements and goal-directed behavior: A relational frame account of goal setting in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26(1), 131–170.Google Scholar
  22. O'Hora, D., Peláez, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Rae, G., Robinson, K., & Chaudhary, T. (2008). Temporal relations and intelligence: Correlating relational performance with performance on the WAIS-III. The Psychological Record, 58(4), 569–584.Google Scholar
  23. Psychology Software Tools. (2004). E-Prime (vers. 2) [computer software]. Sharpsburg: PA: Author.Google Scholar
  24. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
  25. Reilly, T., Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). The effect of training structure on the latency of responses to a five-term linear chain. The Psychological Record, 55(2), 233–249.Google Scholar
  26. Ruiz, F. J., & Luciano, C. (2011). Cross-domain analogies as relating derived relations among two separate relational networks. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 369–385.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaeb.2011.95-369.Google Scholar
  27. Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56(3), 519–555.Google Scholar
  28. Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2004). A functional-analytic model of analogy using the relational evaluation procedure. The Psychological Record, 54(4), 531–552.Google Scholar
  29. Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). MASS: Modern applied statistics with S (R package 4). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.).: UK manual. London, UK: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  31. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  32. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Dublin Business SchoolDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations