Paul M. Smeets

ESTABLISHING EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS USING A RESPONDENT-TYPE TRAINING PROCEDURE III

During three experiments, 35 human, adult subjects across seven experimental conditions (5 subjects in each condition) were exposed to a respondent-type training procedure in which arbitrary stimuli (i.e., nonsense syllables) were presented, one at a time, on a computer screen. In Condition 1, Experiment 1, instructions informed the subjects that the material to be presented during the first stage of the experiment (i.e., the respondent-type training procedure) was related to the second stage (i.e., the equivalence test). Nine nonsense syllables were presented to the subjects in the form of six stimulus pairs: A1 → B1, B1 → C1, A2 → B2, B2 → C2, A3 → B3, B3 → C3. The first stimulus of each pair was presented for 1 s (e.g., A1), the computer screen was cleared for 0.5 s (the within-pair-delay) and the second stimulus in the pair (i.e., B1) was presented for 1 s. The screen cleared for 3 s (i.e., the between-pair-delay) before the next stimulus pair was presented. All six stimulus pairs were presented 10 times in a quasi-random order across 60 trials. Subjects were presented with a standard matching-to-sample equivalence test that examined the six symmetry relations (i.e., B1-A1, B2-A2, B3-A3, C1-B1, C2-B2, C3-B3) and the three equivalence relations (i.e., C1-A1, C2-A2, C3-A3). All five subjects demonstrated equivalence responding after two, three, or four exposures to the training and testing. The remaining six conditions, across the three experiments, showed that the effectiveness of the respondent-type training procedure in producing equivalence responding was dependent upon (a) the presence of longer between-pair-delays relative to the within-pair-delays and (b) the sequence in which the stimulus pairs were presented.

A Transfer of Functions and a Conditional Transfer of Functions through Equivalence Relations in Three- to Six-Year-Old Children

Six children, aged between 3 years and 6 years were trained to form two, three member equivalence relations (A1-B1-C1 and A2-B2-C2). Clapping was then reinforced in the presence of B1, and waving was reinforced in the presence of B2. During testing, all children showed the predicted transfer of discriminative functions through equivalence to the C stimuli (i.e., C1 evoked clapping and C2 evoked waving). Three control subjects of similar ages, who were trained in the conditional discriminations and tested for equivalence using different arbitrary stimuli for C1 and C2, failed to show this transfer of functions. All nine children (six experimental and three control) were also exposed to conditional discriminative function training. That is, clapping was reinforced when B1 was presented in the presence of the spoken word “Yellow,” and waving was reinforced when B1 was presented in the presence of the spoken word “Blue.” In contrast, waving was reinforced when B2 was presented in the presence of the spoken word “Yellow,” and clapping was reinforced when B2 was presented in the presence of the spoken word “Blue.” During testing, the contextual stimuli were presented in visual form only. Two four-year-old children and one six-year-old child (experimental subjects) showed the predicted conditional transfer of control through equivalence relations to the C stimuli (Yellow/C1→cllapping, Blue/C1→waving, Yellow/ C2→waving, and Blue/C2→clapping), whereas the four- and six-year-old control subjects did not. The three-year-old subjects (both control and experimental) refused to complete the study.

Relating Equivalence Relations to Equivalence Relations: A Relational Framing Model of Complex Human Functioning

The current study aimed to develop a behavior-analytic model of analogical reasoning. In Experiments 1 and 2 subjects (adults and children) were trained and tested for the formation of four, three-member equivalence relations using a delayed matching-to-sample procedure. All subjects (Experiments 1 and 2) were exposed to tests that examined relations between equivalence and non-equivalence relations. For example, on an equivalence-equivalence relation test, the complex sample B1/C1 and the two complex comparisons B3/C3 and B3/C4 were used, and on a nonequivalence-nonequivalence relation test the complex sample B1/C2 was presented with the same two comparisons. All subjects consistently related equivalence relations to equivalence relations and nonequivalence relations to nonequivalence relations (e.g., picked B3/C3 in the presence of B1/Cl and picked B3/C4 in the presence of B1/C2). In Experiment 3, the equivalence responding, the equivalence-equivalence responding, and the nonequivalence-nonequivalence responding was successfully brought under contextual control. Finally, it was shown that the contextual cues could function successfully as comparisons, and the complex samples and comparisons could function successfully as contextual cues and samples, respectively. These data extend the equivalence paradigm and contribute to a behaviour-analytic interpretation of analogical reasoning and complex human functioning, in general.

Exemplar Training and a Derived Transformation of Function in Accordance with Symmetry

The main purpose of the present study was to determine whether exemplar training would readily facilitate the transformation of function in accordance with symmetry. Sixteen children, aged between 4 and 5 years, were employed across four experiments (i.e., 4 children each in Experiments 1 to 4). In Experiment 1, subjects were first trained to name two actions and two objects by demonstrating listening, echoic, and tacting behaviors (e.g., hear name → point to object, hear name → say name, see object → say name, respectively). This name training served to establish that each of the subjects could clearly discriminate the experimental stimuli. Subjects were then trained in an action-object conditional discrimination using the previously named actions and objects (e.g., when the experimenter waved, choosing a toy car was reinforced, and when the experimenter clapped, choosing a doll was reinforced). Subjects were then reexposed to the name training, before exposure to a test for derived object-action symmetry relations (e.g., experimenter presents toy car → child. waves and experimenter presents doll → child claps). Across subsequent sessions, a multiple-baseline design was used to introduce exemplar training (i.e., explicit symmetry training) for those subjects who failed the symmetry test. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, except that the name retraining (between the conditional discrimination training and symmetry test) was removed. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 1, except that subjects were trained to tact all of the actions and objects during conditional discrimination training and symmetry testing. Experiment 4 replicated Experiment 1, except that the trained and tested relations were reversed (i.e., train object-action, test action-object relations). Across the four experiments, 13 out of 16 subjects failed to show derived objectaction (Experiments 1-3) or action-object (Experiment 4) symmetry until they received explicit symmetry training. Overall, the data are consistent with Relational Frame Theory.

Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding

Relational Frame Theory proposes that control by novel instructions may be understood as control by networks of Same and Before or After relations. The current paper reports two experiments in which such control was demonstrated. In Experiment 1, undergraduate students were first trained to respond in accordance with Before and After relations and then trained to respond in accordance with Same and Different relations. Subjects were then presented with a number of ‘instructions’ in the form of networks of Same, Different, Before, and After relations in the absence of reinforcement. Of the 3 students, 2 demonstrated the required performance within two exposures to the final phase of the experiment. In Experiment 2, 5 of 8 additional subjects who demonstrated instructional control also did so in the presence of 24 novel stimulus sets without further training. The implications of these novel and generative performances for the analysis of instructional control and human language more generally are considered.

A Derived Transfer of Emotive Functions as a Means of Establishing Differential Preferences for Soft Drinks

In Experiment 1, 36 subjects were exposed to a stimulus equivalence procedure during which they were trained to match the two nonsense syllables VEK and ZID to the emotive words CANCER and HOLIDAYS, respectively, and to match the product labels BRAND X and BRAND Y to the nonsense syllables. The subjects were then tested for equivalence responding (e.g., CANCER → BRAND X, and HOLIDAYS → BRAND Y). Finally subjects were presented with two samples of the same cola-based drink, one labeled BRAND X and the other labeled BRAND Y. Subjects were required to rate the colas for pleasantness. A significant difference in terms of the ratings of the pleasantness of the colas was found for the group who passed the equivalence test. The group of subjects who failed the equivalence test showed no significant difference in their ratings of the colas. Experiment 2 demonstrated that exposure to the equivalence test was not a prerequisite for the transfer of preference functions. Experiment 3 demonstrated that it is possible to reverse subjects’ preferences for the two colas by reversing the trained conditional discriminations. Furthermore, unlike the previous two experiments, Experiment 3 assessed the preference functions for the emotive words before and after the conditional discrimination training and transfer testing.

Response latencies to multiple derived stimulus relations: Testing two predictions of relational frame theory

In Experiment 1, 3 college students were exposed to relational pretraining to establish the contextual functions of Same, Opposite, More Than, and Less Than in four arbitrary stimuli. Subjects were then trained on the matching-to-sample tasks A 1-81 and Y1-N1, in the presence of the More-Than contextual cue, A 1-82 and Y1-N2 in the presence of the Less-Than contextual cue, C1-D1 and E1 -D2 in the presence of the Same cue, and C1-D2 and E1-D1 in the presence of the Opposite cue. Test trials were subsequently administered to probe for the mutually entailed relations; Less-Than/81-A 1, Less-ThanlN1-Y1, More-Than/82-A1, More-Than/N2-Y1, Same/D1-C1, Same/D2-E1, Opposite/D2-C1, and Opposite/D1-E1. Response latencies to probes for derived Same/Opposite relations were significantly lower than those for derived More ThaniLess Than relations. Experiment 2 exposed 4 subjects to training across each of the four relations and used a novel stimulus set to test for reduced response latencies to the derived relations. Response latencies to More-ThaniLess-Than probes reduced significantly across the original to the novel stimulus set, whereas latencies to Same/Opposite probes were low across both stimulus sets.

Procedures and Parameters of Errorless Discrimination Training with Developmentally Impaired Individuals

Publisher Summary This chapter reviews procedural parameters involved in errorless discrimination training, that is, type of stimulus manipulations, error criteria and positive responses per step, nature of the task, number of steps in the program, and manipulations along the S+ and/or S- stimuli. In two-choice discrimination tasks taught through stimulus shaping or stimulus fading, manipulations have often been carried out only on one of the stimuli. In two-choice discrimination tasks taught through superimposition and fading, manipulations have been carried out on one of the stimuli or on both of them. In tasks taught through delayed-cue procedures, manipulations are normally carried out on one of the stimuli. The chapter discusses basic issues involved, errorless training procedures have not always been as successful as expected, error performance and failures have been reported. Nevertheless, the results obtained with the procedures have, with sporadic exceptions, compared favorably with those obtained with trial-and-error training. Another issue is, procedures involving within-stimulus manipulations and extra-stimulus distinctive-feature manipulations have appeared more effective than procedures based on extra-stimulus nondistinctive-feature manipulations.

GENERATING DERIVED RELATIONAL NETWORKS VIA THE ABSTRACTION OF COMMON PHYSICAL PROPERTIES: A POSSIBLE MODEL OF ANALOGICAL REASONING

The aim of this study was to provide a demonstration of equivalence-equivalence responding based on the abstraction of common formal properties, thus extending the functional-analytic model of analogical reasoning shown by Barnes, Hegarty, and Smeets (1997), In Experiment 1, 9 college students were taught, using a delayed matching-to-sample procedure, to choose a particular nonsense syllable in the presence of each of four blue and four red geometric shapes. In a subsequent test, all 9 subjects demonstrated equivalence formation based on the abstraction of color by consistently matching nonsense syllables related to same-colored shapes to each other. Of these 9 subjects, 8 then showed equivalence-equivalence responding in which equivalence relations from the previous part of the experiment were related to other equivalence relations and nonequivalence relations were related to other nonequivalence relations. In Experiment 2, 3 out of 4 additional subjects showed this analogical-type responding based on larger relational networks than those established in Experiment 1, and in Experiment 3, 3 further subjects showed analogical responding based on the abstraction of the relatively complex property of age.

Matching Functionally Same Relations: Implications for Equivalence-Equivalence as a Model for Analogical Reasoning

Adults, 9-year-old children, and 5-year-old children were trained on multiple A-B and A-C matching tasks. Then they received a series of tests, first symmetry (B-A, C-A), then equivalence (B-C, C-B), and finally equivalence-equivalence tests (BC-BC). The latter tests assessed whether the subjects matched BC compounds with equivalent elements with one another and BC compounds with nonequivalent elements with one another; for example, B1C1-B3C3 (equivalence-equivalence) and B1C2-B2C3 (nonequivalence-nonequivalence). Most adults and 9-year-old children demonstrated equivalence-equivalence and nonequivalence-nonequivalence (Experiments 1 and 2). These performances were not seen with any of the 5-year-old children (Experiments 1 - 3) without first having the opportunity to match compounds with trained correct relations between elements (e.g., A1B1-A3B3) and compounds with trained incorrect relations between elements (e.g., A3C1-A3C2) (baseline-baseline, Experiment 4). Present findings suggest a developmental divide similar to that reported in earlier developmental research on analogical reasoning for which equivalence-equivalence has been used as a model. Yet, they should be taken only as tentative. Although equivalence-equivalence and classical analogies (a:b::c:?) require subjects to match functionally same relations, the procedures for measuring equivalence-equivalence are suffiently different from those used in classical analogy tests, not to permit any direct comparisons.