Equivalence class analysis of responding consistent with the relational frame of opposition

We replicated and extended studies showing that contextual cues for matching stimuli from 2 separate equivalence classes control the same derived relations as contextual cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. We conducted 2 experiments with 6 college students. In Phase 1, they received training in a conditional discrimination AB. Then, they received training for maintaining AB with X1 as context, and for reversing the sample-comparison relations of AB, with X2. In Phase 2, X1 functioned as context for matching same-class stimuli, and X2 functioned as context for matching separate-class stimuli. In Phase 3, X2 controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. This functional equivalence may suggest that X2 functioned as a cue for opposition frames. In Phase 4, participants matched different stimuli with X2 as context, instead of matching most different (opposite) stimuli. In addition, Different, a cue for matching different stimuli, controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as X2. These results are incompatible with X2 being a cue for opposition frames. Contextual control over equivalence and responding by exclusion can explain these outcomes. The implications of these findings for RFT studies on opposition frames are discussed.