Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32647782›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2020

Relational Density Theory: Nonlinearity of Equivalence Relating Examined through Higher-Order Volumetric-Mass-Density.

Jordan Belisle, Mark R Dixon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Derived Relations and Meaning in Responding to Art.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022
    Article
  11. Relational Behavior and ACT: A Dynamic Relationship.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Selection by consequence: A response to Hayes and Fryling (2019).Journal of contextual behavioral science · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jordan BelisleMissouri State University, Springfield, MO USA.
Mark R DixonDepartment of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1640 W. Roosevelt Rd. 436 DHSP (MC 626), Chicago, IL 60608 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose relational density theory, as an integration of stimulus equivalence and behavioral momentum theory, to predict the nonlinearity of equivalence responding of verbal humans. Consistent with Newtonian classical mechanics, the theory posits that equivalence networks will demonstrate the higher order properties of density, volume, and mass. That is, networks containing more relations (volume) that are stronger (density) will be more resistant to change (i.e., contain greater mass; mass = volume * density). Data from several equivalence experiments that are not easily interpreted through existing accounts are described in terms of the theory, generating predictable results in most cases. In addition, we put forward the higher-order properties of relational acceleration and gravity, which follow directly from the theory and may inspire future researchers to evaluate the seemingly self-organizing nature of human cognition. Finally, we conclude by describing avenues for real-world translation, considering past research interpreted through relational density theory, and call for basic experimental research to validate and extend core theoretical assumptions.

Indexed as

classical mechanicsrelational density theoryrelational frame theorystimulus equivalence

Identifiers

PMID32647782
PMCPMC7316902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.