Group items tagged

relational skills

might be considered loosely as the functional counterpart of the more widely used concept of relational reasoning skills

Researchers have been fast to capitalize upon the obvious relevance of this and related phenomena to a wide range of cognitive skills, including language, reasoning, and problem solving

Indeed, it is a widely held view that derived relational responding and language processes are in fact synonymous

The relational frame approach to intelligence is somewhat commensurate with several mainstream cognitive approaches to understanding intellectual skills. The most obvious of these is the concept of relational reasoning or knowledge. Specifically, relational knowledge is thought to integrate heuristic and analytic cognition and to be important for symbolic processes. As it happens, the regions of the brain activated by relational reasoning are in the prefrontal cortex, which further corroborates the view that relational reasoning is central to many higher cognitive processes (see Halford et. al., 2010).

the development of framing appears to be correlated with the development of language, itself seen as a crucial aspect of intellectual development and ability

In addition, numerous empirical and conceptual research papers have presented evidence that the ability to derive relations is associated with, and possibly even underpins language ability (Moran, Stewart, McElwee & Ming, 2010, 2014; O’Connor, Rafferty, Barnes- Holmes & Barnes-Holmes, 2009).

Although the tasks vary widely, most of these tests involve an unusual circumstance in which subjects are required to perform actions that conflict systematically with immediate and well-established sources of behavioral regulation.

In summary, on the basis of the requirements of the kinds of tests used in this area, executive function is not invoked when responses are well-practiced, smooth, or automatic.

Given that well-practiced sources of behavioral control do not work, .subjects must either derive new rules that work or they must follow rules given by the experimenter and override alternative sources of behavioral control.

Given that well-practiced sources of behavioral control do not work, .subjects must either derive new rules that work or they must follow rules given by the experimenter and override alternative sources of behavioral control.

he flexibility and effectiveness of verbal regulation,

verbal behavior is viewed as the major substantive process in complex human behavior.

Rules appear to be one way that humans reduce the tendency to respond automatically to immediate contingencies. These findings ultimately led behavior analysts to investigate the role of verbal rules in the differences found between humans and nonhumans.

There are three derived relations said to be characteristic of stimulus equivalence (Sidman & Tailby, 1982): reflexivity (e.g., Al = AI); 2) symmetry (e.g., if Al pick Bl is trained, then Bl pick Al is derived); and 3) transitivity (e.g., if Al pick Bl, and Bl pick Cl are trained, then given Al pick Cl is derived and vice versa). Stimulus equivalence has been shown with a wide variety of human subjects, using a wide variety of stimulus materials

Why would such a general behavioral class form? Much as with the behavioral account of generalized imitation (Baer, Peterson, & Sherman, 1967; Gewirtz & Stengle, 1968), we need only suppose that training with many, many exemplars of a class can lead to formation of the class.

Relational frame theory suggests that an inherent component of verbal behavior, whether from the point of view of the speaker or the listener, is the learned derivation of stimulus relations based on contextual cues to do so, and not merely on the formal properties of the related events

Relational frames have three defining properties.

Following arule requires two additional events: the transformation of stimulus functions in terms of the underlying network of stimulus relations, and contingencies that support activity with regard to these transformed functions. A failure in either process can mean a failure in verbal regulation.

Several rules may be reflectively considered. The person may "decide" what to do. In this case, several rules that are available by virtue of their relation to verbal categories in the environment are examined by applying an if-then relational frame to them.

Rule following is more likely if the consequences are psychologically present, because having those functions verbally present is a motivative augmental (Hayes & Ju, 1993).

rule flexibility should increase when the person has ready alternatives to an existing rule.

The rule should be tied to clear and immediately measurable outcomes and be sufficiently specific that the rule follower can know when it is not working.

rules that emphasize strategies, rather than specific topographies of behavior, are likely to be followed more flexibly.

Our line of thinking also suggests that pliance usually helps establish tracking, which helps establish augmenting.

According to our way of looking at executive function, what is at issue is the ability to derive, apply, or actually follow verbal rules in conflict with other verbal or nonverbal behavior.

To say it another way, there has been a tendency to stay "in the head" and to de-emphasize the direct behavioral effects of verbal abilities. Executive function challenges that tendency, because it is all about the connection between human verbal abilities and actual behavioral regulation.

Whether or not the relational frame approach turns out to be useful, behavioral psychologists are used to thinking about events functionally and, as a result, have something important to contribute to the development of our understanding of this area.