Equivalence class analysis of responding consistent with the relational frame of opposition
Contextual cues can fake opposition effects, so probe for exclusion before claiming relational framing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team taught college students to match pictures using two extra cues, X1 and X2. They wanted to see if X2 would create true "opposite" relations like "hot is the opposite of cold."
After training, they tested whether new pairs showed the same opposite pattern without direct teaching.
What they found
At first, X2 did produce choices that looked like opposites. Later tests, however, broke the pattern. The results fit plain equivalence plus simple exclusion better than a real opposition frame.
In short, the cue made learners pick the non-matching item, not grasp a true opposite relation.
How this fits with other research
Allen et al. (2001) saw the same kind of class breakdown when later training clashed with earlier links. Both studies warn that new conditional tasks can wreck first-formed classes.
Davison et al. (2002) showed that you can teach solid contextual control, but only after many exemplars. Alonso‐Alvarez et al. (2021) gave few exemplars, so their weak cue control lines up with that older finding.
Silguero et al. (2023) found that conflicting reinforcers stay inside a class instead of dropping out. The 2021 data add a fresh twist: contextual cues can also fail to rule the class, letting other processes like exclusion take over.
Why it matters
Before you say a client has "relational framing of opposite," run extra probes. Check if they are just excluding the known match rather than understanding the relation. Add many exemplars and mixed tests to be sure the cue truly controls the performance.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add extra non-reinforced probe trials with new stimulus pairs to see if the contextual cue keeps control.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We replicated and extended studies showing that contextual cues for matching stimuli from 2 separate equivalence classes control the same derived relations as contextual cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. We conducted 2 experiments with 6 college students. In Phase 1, they received training in a conditional discrimination AB. Then, they received training for maintaining AB with X1 as context, and for reversing the sample-comparison relations of AB, with X2. In Phase 2, X1 functioned as context for matching same-class stimuli, and X2 functioned as context for matching separate-class stimuli. In Phase 3, X2 controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. This functional equivalence may suggest that X2 functioned as a cue for opposition frames. In Phase 4, participants matched different stimuli with X2 as context, instead of matching most different (opposite) stimuli. In addition, Different, a cue for matching different stimuli, controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as X2. These results are incompatible with X2 being a cue for opposition frames. Contextual control over equivalence and responding by exclusion can explain these outcomes. The implications of these findings for RFT studies on opposition frames are discussed.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2021 · doi:10.1002/jeab.690