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

De Houwer (2018) wrote a map, not a study. He asked: Can brain-talk and behavior-talk live in the same room?

He drew boxes and arrows showing how cognitive ideas (memory rules) and functional ideas (what the environment does) can fit together when we study how people link words, pictures, or sounds.

The map shows the two sides are not enemies. They just watch different parts of the same game.

Cognitive tools tell us what might happen inside the head. Functional tools tell us what outside events keep the game going. Use both and you see the full field.

Brodhead (2019) used the same peace-making move. He told us to stop fighting over the ethics code and start fixing it together.

Hagopian (2020) gives a concrete example. His consecutive case-series design is the kind of tool that fills the "generality" box in De Houwer’s map.

Hamama et al. (2021) push the idea further. They say add the client’s voice to every research plan. That is another layer you can park right inside the map.

Next time you write a stimulus-relations goal, add one cognitive measure (like reaction time) and one functional measure (like trials to mastery). Plot both on the same graph. You will see quickly which outside events grow the inside links, and you can adjust teaching the same day.