The Operant-Respondent Distinction Revisited: Toward An Understanding Of Stimulus Equivalence

A Review of Backward Higher-Order Conditioning: Implications for a Pavlovian Conditioning Analysis of Stimulus Equivalence

Stimulus equivalence (SE) is demonstrated when participants exposed to conditional discrimination training pass tests for reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence (symmetry combined with transitivity). Most theorists attribute the origin of SE to operant processes, but some argue that it results from Pavlovian conditioning. Symmetry is problematic for the latter hypothesis because it seems to require excitatory backward conditioning. However, equivalence tests resemble backward sensory preconditioning (BSP) and backward second-order conditioning (BSOC), two well-established processes. A review of associationistic theories of BSP and BSOC showed that the temporal coding hypothesis (TCH) explains outcomes that other associationistic theories cannot explain (i.e., BSOC and BSP effects after first-order conditioning with delay vs. trace conditioning and forward vs. backward conditioning). The TCH assumes that organisms encode the temporal attributes of stimulus events (e.g., order and interval duration) and this temporal information is integrated across separate phases of training. The TCH seems compatible with a behavioral analysis if direct stimulus control replaces the notion of temporal maps. The TCH perspective does not seem applicable to SE because SE tests are not predictive tasks. This suggests that SE is fundamentally different from BSP and BSOC and a Pavlovian conditioning analysis of SE is inadequate. This conclusion is consistent with previous criticism of a Pavlovian account of SE according to which Pavlovian conditioning cannot be interpreted as stimulus substitution.

What Can We Learn by Treating Perspective Taking as Problem Solving?

Perspective taking has been studied extensively using a wide variety of experimental tasks. The theoretical constructs that are used to develop these tasks and interpret the results obtained from them, most notably theory of mind (ToM), have conceptual shortcomings from a behavior-analytic perspective. The behavioral approach to conceptualizing and studying this class of behavior is parsimonious and pragmatic, but the body of relevant research is currently small. The prominent relational frame theory (RFT) approach to derived perspective taking asserts that "deictic framing" is a core component of this class of behavior, but this proposal also appears to be conceptually problematic. We suggest that in many cases perspective taking is problem solving; when successful, both classes of behavior involve the emission of context-appropriate precurrent behavior that facilitates the appropriate response (i.e., the "solution"). Conceptualizing perspective taking in this way appears to have many advantages, which we explore herein.

Translations in Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing: Autoshaping of Learner Vocalizations

Stimulus-stimulus pairing (SSP) is a procedure used by behavior analysis practitioners that capitalizes on respondent conditioning processes to elicit vocalizations. These procedures usually are implemented only after other, more customary methods (e.g., standard echoic training via modeling) have been exhausted. Unfortunately, SSP itself has mixed research support, probably because certain as-yet-unidentified procedural variations are more effective than others. Even when SSP produces (or increases) vocalizations, its effects can be short-lived. Although specific features of SSP differ across published accounts, fundamental characteristics include presentation of a vocal stimulus proximal with presentation of a preferred item. In the present article, we draw parallels between SSP procedures and autoshaping, review factors shown to affect autoshaping, and interpret autoshaping research for suggested SSP tests and applications. We then call for extended use and reporting of SSP in behavior-analytic treatments. Finally, three bridges created by this article are identified: basic-applied, respondent-operant, and behavior analysis with other sciences.

The Will to Fight: Aversion-Induced Aggression and the Role of Motivation in Intergroup Conflicts

Aggressive behavior is a source of many significant human problems, most notably the catastrophic loss of life and resources that can result from violent conflicts between groups. Aggressive behavior is particularly likely to arise from aversive conditions that function as motivating operations (MOs) that establish the stimulation produced by aggressive acts as reinforcing. We describe the behavior that arises from these circumstances as aversion-induced aggression (AIA) and argue that the MOs associated with AIA are important factors in initiating and sustaining violent conflicts between groups. In support of this, we survey the basic nonhuman research that has demonstrated the aggression-motivating functions of aversive stimuli. We extend our analysis of AIA to humans and describe how the special properties of verbal stimuli serve as the basis for notable differences between AIA in humans and nonhumans. We describe how aversive conditions may be exploited by leaders to establish support for aggression against another group in the pursuit of their objectives. We suggest that conflicts between groups cannot be resolved in the long term unless the motivational conditions from which conflicts arise are alleviated. Aggression is rarely effective in this regard because it exacerbates these conditions. For this reason, we advocate against the use of aggression as a tool for resolving conflicts between groups and consider how behavior science may contribute to the development and evaluation of alternative nonviolent practices.

Understanding complex behavior: the transformation of stimulus functions

The transformation of stimulus functions is said to occur when the functions of one stimulus alter or transform the functions of another stimulus in accordance with the derived relation between the two, without additional training. This effect has been demonstrated with a number of derived stimulus relations, behavioral functions, experimental preparations, and subject populations. The present paper reviews much of the existing research on the transformation of stimulus functions and outlines a number of important methodological and conceptual issues that warrant further attention. We conclude by advocating the adoption of the generic terminology of relational frame theory to describe both the derived transformation of stimulus functions and relational responding more generally.

Whatever gave you that idea? False memories following equivalence training: a behavioral account of the misinformation effect

The misinformation effect is a term used in the cognitive psychological literature to describe both experimental and real-world instances in which misleading information is incorporated into an account of an historical event. In many real-world situations, it is not possible to identify a distinct source of misinformation, and it appears that the witness may have inferred a false memory by integrating information from a variety of sources. In a stimulus equivalence task, a small number of trained relations between some members of a class of arbitrary stimuli result in a large number of untrained, or emergent relations, between all members of the class. Misleading information was introduced into a simple memory task between a learning phase and a recognition test by means of a match-to-sample stimulus equivalence task that included both stimuli from the original learning task and novel stimuli. At the recognition test, participants given equivalence training were more likely to misidentify patterns than those who were not given such training. The misinformation effect was distinct from the effects of prior stimulus exposure, or partial stimulus control. In summary, stimulus equivalence processes may underlie some real-world manifestations of the misinformation effect.

Emergent stimulus relations depend on stimulus correlation and not on reinforcement contingencies

We aimed to investigate whether novel stimulus relations would emerge from stimulus correlations when those relations explicitly conflicted with reinforced relations. In a symbolic matching-to-sample task using kanji characters as stimuli, we arranged class-specific incorrect comparison stimuli in each of three classes. After presenting either Ax or Cx stimuli as samples, choices of Bx were reinforced and choices of Gx or Hx were not. Tests for symmetry, and combined symmetry and transitivity, showed the emergence of three 3-member (AxBxCx) stimulus classes in 5 of 5 human participants. Subsequent tests for all possible emergent relations between Ax, Bx, Cx and the class-specific incorrect comparisons Gx and Hx showed that these relations emerged for 4 of 5 the participants after extended overtraining of the baseline relations. These emergent relations must have been based on stimulus-stimulus correlations, and were not properties of the trained discriminated operants, because they required control by relations explicitly extinguished during training. This result supports theoretical accounts of emergent relations that emphasize stimulus correlation over operant contingencies.

Optimizing linked perceptual class formation and transfer of function

A linked perceptual class consists of two distinct perceptual classes, A' and B', the members of which have become related to each other. For example, a linked perceptual class might be composed of many pictures of a woman (one perceptual class) and the sounds of that woman's voice (the other perceptual class). In this case, any sound of the woman's voice would occasion the selection of any picture of the woman and vice versa. In addition, after learning to name the woman in the presence of one picture, that name would be uttered when presented with all of the images of the woman's face and all of the sounds of her voice. This study involved 15 participants and sought to (a) maximize the percentage of participants who formed linked perceptual classes, and (b) determine whether those classes acted as transfer networks, that is, whether the discriminative function of one class member would generalize to other members of the class and not to members of a different class. The rate of emergence of each linked perceptual class was maximized by establishing a single class-linking conditional relation between the clearest member of one class used as a sample stimulus and the most ambiguous member of the other class used as a comparison stimulus. Class formation was demonstrated using the serial and programmed presentation of A'-B' probes that consisted of untrained pairs of stimuli drawn from the A' and B' classes. Most participants showed immediate emergence of the two linked perceptual classes. The remaining participants showed delayed emergence following a second exposure to each originally error-producing probes. Once the linked perceptual classes had emerged, a differential response to a specific member of one perceptual class generalized mostly or completely to the other members of that linked class and rarely, if ever, to members of the other linked class. Thus, generalization did not depend on the specific class members that had been used for discrimination training.

Nodal structure and the partitioning of equivalence classes

By definition, all of the stimuli in an equivalence class have to be functionally interchangeable with each other. The present experiment, however, demonstrated that this was not the case when using post-class-formation dual-option response transfer tests. With college students, two 4-node 6-member equivalence classes with nodal structures of A-->B-->C-->D-->E-->F were produced by training AB, BC, CD, DE, and EF. Then, unique responses were trained to the C and D stimuli in each class. The responses trained to C generalized to B and A, while the responses trained to D generalized to E and F. Thus, each 4-node 6-member equivalence class was bifurcated into two 3-member functional classes: A-->B-->C and D-->E-->F, with class membership precisely predicted by nodal structure. A final emergent relations test documented the intactness of the underlying 4-node 6-member equivalence classes. The coexistence of the interchangeability of stimuli in an equivalence class and the bifurcation of such a class in terms of nodal structure was explained in the following manner. The conditional discriminations that are used to establish a class also imposes a nodal structure on the stimuli in the class. Thus, the stimuli in the class acquire two sets of relational properties. If the format of a test trial allows only one response option per class, responding on those trials will be in accordance with class membership and will not express the effects of nodal distance. If the format of a test trial allows more than one response option per class, responding on those trials will be determined by the nodal structure of the class. Thus, the relational properties expressed by the stimuli in an equivalence class are determined by the discriminative function served by the format of a test trial.

Function transfer in human operant experiments: the role of stimulus pairings

Although function transfer often has been studied in complex operant procedures (such as matching to sample), whether operant reinforcement actually produces function transfer in such settings has not been established. The present experiments, with high school students as subjects, suggest that stimulus pairings can promote function transfer in conditions that closely approximate those of matching to sample. In Experiment 1, the subjects showed transfer of operant responding from three geometric figures (C1, C2, C3) to three colored shapes (B1, B2, B3) when the latter were paired with the former. Experiment 2 involved two groups of subjects. In the matching group, subjects matched the colored shapes with the geometric figures; in the yoked group, the shapes were merely paired with the geometric figures, and the schedule of stimulus pairing was yoked to the performance of the subjects in the matching group. Both groups of subjects showed function transfer. Experiment 3 documented function transfer from C stimuli to B stimuli through indirect stimulus pairings (A-B, A-C). In Experiment 4, function transfer was obtained even though the subjects vocalized continuously during the pairing trials, presumably preventing covert verbalization that might mediate transfer effects. Our results are consistent with a Pavlovian account and raise difficulties for current operant theories of function transfer.