Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory.

Murray Sidman's view of stimulus equivalence as a basic stimulus function, and his preference for a largely procedural approach to the study of equivalence is outlined. Steven Hayes's relational frame account, which considers the equivalence relation as one of a number of derived stimulus functions...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Psychological Record Vol. 44; pp. 91 - 125
Autor principal: Barnes, Dermot
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Psychological Record Winter94
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=508505213&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 508505213
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00332933
        PSD
      jtl: Psychological Record
      issn: 00332933
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Winter94
      vid: 44
      pid: 761
      pub: Psychological Record
    artinfo:
      ui: 508505213
      ppf: 91
      ppct: 34
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: T
      tig:
        atl: Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory.
      aug:
        au: Barnes, Dermot
      su:
        Association of ideas
        Stimulus & response (Biology)
      sug:
        subj:
          Association of ideas
          Stimulus & response (Biology)
      keyword: Association (Psychology)
      ab: Murray Sidman's view of stimulus equivalence as a basic stimulus function, and his preference for a largely procedural approach to the study of equivalence is outlined. Steven Hayes's relational frame account, which considers the equivalence relation as one of a number of derived stimulus functions, is also examined. The empirical implications arising from the main differences between these two accounts are discussed. Although relational frame theory does appear to readily predict at least one equivalence effect that Sidman's approach does not, it is still too early to decide which account is better. Reviewing the differences between these two accounts, however, should help to prevent conceptual and empirical confusion in future research. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N