Relational Frame Theory and Stimulus Equivalence are Fundamentally Different: A Reply to Saunders’ Commentary

[1]  D. Barnes,et al.  A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than. , 1995, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  S. Hayes.  Relational frame theory: A functional approach to verbal events. , 1994 .

[3]  Bryan Roche,et al.  Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding and Sexual Categorization: A Critical Test of the Derived Difference Relation , 1996 .

[4]  Ronald J. Schusterman,et al.  A California Sea Lion (Zalophus Californianus) is Capable of Forming Equivalence Relations , 1993 .

[5]  R. Stromer,et al.  Complex Stimulus Control and Equivalence , 1993 .

[6]  Linda J. Hayes,et al.  The verbal action of the listener as a basis for rule-governance. , 1989 .

[7]  R. Stromer,et al.  12 Naming and the formation of stimulus classes , 1996 .

[8]  Murray Sidman,et al.  Equivalence Relations and Behavior: A Research Story , 1994 .

[9]  D. Barnes,et al.  Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory , 1994 .

[10]  R. Saunders.  From Review to Commentary on Roche and Barnes: Toward a Better Understanding of Equivalence in the Context of Relational Frame Theory , 1996 .

[11]  S. Hayes,et al.  Some Applied Implications of a Contemporary Behavior-Analytic Account of Verbal Events , 1993, The Behavior analyst.

[12]  S. Hayes,et al.  Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  T. Zentall,et al.  Emergent Relations in the Formation of Stimulus Classes by Pigeons , 1993 .