Toward a theory of verbal behavior.
The naming account now handles comparative words and challenges equivalence theories like RFT.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hanley et al. (1997) wrote a theory paper. They built on Skinner’s naming account of verbal behavior.
The authors added rules for same, different, more, and less. They also questioned equivalence-based ideas like RFT.
What they found
The paper does not give new data. It gives new concepts.
The naming account now covers comparative words. The authors say equivalence theories are not needed.
How this fits with other research
Harte et al. (2024) and Harte et al. (2023) push updated RFT. They say RFT gives clearer links to ACT skills. Hanley et al. (1997) says RFT is not coherent. The two camps talk past each other because one builds theory and the other tears it down.
Older models like Green et al. (1987) and Miranda-Linné et al. (1992) set up formal equivalence rules. Hanley et al. (1997) tries to replace them with the simpler naming idea.
Goulardins et al. (2013) shows how verbal behavior theory guides autism teaching. That work extends the naming frame toward real kids and real sessions.
Why it matters
If you write programs for language or cognition, you now have two tool kits: naming and RFT. This paper reminds you to check which story fits your data. Try teaching comparatives like “same” and “more” through pure naming first. If the child learns fast, you may skip extra equivalence steps. If not, keep RFT tools in your pocket.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Test teaching “same” and “different” with a simple naming procedure before adding equivalence trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This paper is a reply to an accompanying set of six commentaries by Sidman; Hayes and Barnes; Schusterman, Kastak, and Reichmuth; Tonneau and Sokolowski; Lowenkron; and Moerk. Those commentaries were prompted by our article “On the Origins of Naming and Other Symbolic Behavior” (1996), which was, in turn, followed by 26 commentaries and a reply. In the course of the present reply, we further develop the naming account to embrace more complex verbal relations such as same, different, more , and less . We also examine what we see as the lack of conceptual coherence in equivalence theories, including relational frame theory, and the disparities between these accounts and the findings from empirical research.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1997 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1997.68-271