Association for Behavior Analysis International

Verbal Behavior interactions are episodes of the daily life of humans. Despite its relevance, few studies (e.g., Conger & Killeen, 1974; McDowell & Caron, 2010; Simon & Baum, 2017) evaluate the individual's response as a stimulus in the modulation of another’s individual response. The objective of this study was to evaluate the establishment of contingent relationships in verbal behavior interactions. Fifteen adults participated, each one was assigned a descriptor or executor role. The first ones had to describe six printed models-figures, which only they could see. The seconds had to draw what described their partner. Four phases were programmed, in phases 1 and 3 the executors solved the task with Descriptor A, and in phases 2 and 4 with Descriptor B. The sessions ended when the six model-figures were completed. An index for data analysis was designed (effective responses divided by total responses). In all cases, performance improved in the last two phases compared to the first ones, this could be due to the establishment of contingency relationships in which the partner's response had stimulus functions. These results allow us to recognize that, with some methodological modifications, this task can be useful for the empirical analysis of verbal behavior in dyadic interactions.

Relational Density Theory (RDT) is an extension of Relational Frame Theory that attempts to describe high-order interactions within relational behavior by utilizing Newtonian classical mechanics from physics as a quantitative metaphor. RDT states that relational networks demonstrate higher order properties of density, volume, and mass, which affect the relative likelihood of change along those relational networks. Recent research has shown the merging of classes after coherence training and their relative densities (Belisle & Clayton, 2021). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative degree of change of a pre-established low volume-high density relational class when exposed to a strategic disruptor. Twenty-nine participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group received coherence training and the other received a strategic disruptor. We found the strategic, randomized disruptor applied to the disruptor group was not enough to produce change in the low-volume, high-density pre-established relational network. Participants responded consistent with their pre-established relational classes rather than responding consistent with the random stimulus pairings established in the disruptor phase. These findings suggest low-volume, yet high density relational networks are resistant to Future research may explore the degree of strength required for a disruptor to produce changes in such responding.

Relational Density Theory (RDT; Belisle & Dixon, 2020) states that relational classes demonstrate properties of density, volume, and mass, which affect the relative likelihood of change along those relational classes. Recent research on RDT suggests that low-volume, high-density relational classes demonstrate resistance to change when exposed to a strategic, randomized disruptor. Previous research is limited in that it does not determine the relative counterforce necessary to produce change in low-volume, high-density relational classes. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether a structured non-coherence training was sufficient to produce change along a pre-established low-volume, high-density relational class. Participants were assigned to either a coherence training or a non-coherence training group and a Multidimensional Scaling Procedure was administered prior to and following the respective training for each group to obtain a quantitative measure of distance between relational classes. A Stimulus Pairing Observation Procedure was utilized to establish coherent relational classes for each group, then a coherence training was administered to one group and a non-coherence training was administered to the other. Overall, the results showed significant fractionation for the non-coherence group and not for the coherence group, which suggests low-volume, high-density relational classes can be altered with sufficient counterforce.

Previous research has indicated that “insensitivity” to changing reinforcement contingencies is a potential consequence of rule following. To further evaluate the variables of which insensitivity may be a function, participants were tasked with earning blocks in a PORTL-like experiment (cf. Hunter & Rosales-Ruiz, 2019). During the experiment, which was modeled after Hayes et al. (1986), participants could earn reinforcers by pressing a button during alternating FR7 and DRL 5-s schedules of reinforcement. In some conditions, the instructions of “Go fast” and “Go slow” were used to either aid or mislead participants. Results indicated that instructions influenced the range of response rates as well as stimulus control over those rates. However, by the end of the experiment, all participants demonstrated sensitivity to both reinforcement contingencies, even in the presence of conflicting instructions. Additionally, there was no evidence that instructions necessarily led to schedule insensitivity. These results suggest that some instances of insensitivity may result simply from how instructions restrict response alternatives—and stimulus control over those alternatives—instead of by specifying a second contingency of reinforcement.