Who can understand relational frame theory? A reply to Barnes-Holmes and Hayes

Hayes ’ questions (this issue), some background may help the readers understand the nature of the current debate. Among the commentaries on Equivalence relations: A critical analysis (Tonneau, 2001) that were published in this journal, some defended relational frame theory (RFT) as a promising alternative to a correlation-based ap-proach to symbolic behavior. Barnes-Holmes, S. C. Hayes, and Roche (2001), in particular, de-fended RFT and criticized the approach I pro-posed on two main issues. A first issue concerned possible difficulties with symmetry in matching to sample and with A-B, A-C function transfer when the training tri-als are mixed. After suggesting that a Pavlovian process could not operate in the latter conditions “unless one wishes to invoke the problematic concept of backward associative conditioning,” Barnes-Holmes, S. C. Hayes, and Roche (2001, p. 37) concluded that I had “completely failed” to address the emergence of bidirectional be-havioral phenomena. A second challenge raise