ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2025
Is Reference a Relation of Equivalence or Sameness?
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The stimulus equivalence (SE) paradigm has become a central explanatory framework for language and complex symbolic behavior within behavior analysis. Its explanatory power rests on three core assumptions: (1) human symbolic behavior is grounded in the semantic relation between words and their referents; (2) this relation is one of equivalence; and in consequence (3) there is a transfer of stimulus functions between words and their referents. These assumptions are also endorsed by relational frame theory (RFT), although considering equivalence as a consequence of a relation of sameness within a relational frame of coordination. However, this article shows that the referential relation is neither reflexive, symmetrical, nor transitive, and therefore cannot be characterized as one of equivalence or sameness, invalidating (2) and (3). It is also shown that other attempts to support (2) or (3), based on the Fields-Place principle or contextual control, fail to achieve their aim. It is argued that between the behavior of the speaker and the listener, there is a functional asymmetry that grounds the asymmetry of the referential relation, and typical SE and RFT experimental paradigms cannot capture it. Finally, some consequences for the study of the SE phenomenon and the study of symbolic behavior from the perspective of behavior analysis are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.