Palmer, D. C. (2004).
Generic response classes and relational frame theory: Response to Hayes & Barnes-Holmes.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 225-234.
Hayes and Barnes-Holmes (2004) assert that the concept of a topographically
unconstrained response class, the concept that carries the explanatory burden
of relational frame theory, appeals to no new principles. Operants are properly
defined functionally. I argue that they have stretched the concept of the
generic response class beyond its appropriate limits. Skinner conceived of
response classes as empirically defined units, mutually interchangeable in
quantitative functions. The notion of overarching, generalized operants is
an uncritical, analogical extension of this concept. I hold that the
conceptual work of relational frame theory is incomplete, that a statement
of principle is necessary, even if not new. Finally, I distinguish a
supposed commitment to a philosophical “mediationism” from a valid inquiry
about mediating behavior; that is, behavior with stimulus products that
participate in the control of the behavior of primary interest.
Key words: generic units, mediating behavior, relational frame theory, relational frames,
response classes, stimulus classes, units of analysis, verbal behavior