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

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.

Do contingency-conflicting elements drop out of equivalence classes? Retesting Sidman's (2000) theory

Sidman's (2000) theory of stimulus equivalence states that all positive elements in a reinforcement contingency enter an equivalence class. The theory also states that if an element from an equivalence class conflicts with a reinforcement contingency, the conflicting element will "drop out" of the class. Minster et al. (2006) found evidence that a conflicting reinforcer does not drop out of an equivalence class. To explain their results, they proposed that the reinforcer enters the class via pairing after conditional relations have been established, and when there is a conflict between the class and the contingencies, conditionally related elements that have a longer history in the class and that were brought in via reinforcement will exert stronger control. In the current study, stimulus-reinforcer relations were established before conditional relations to assess the role of developmental order of stimulus relations on conditional-discrimination performance. The results replicate the findings of Minster et al. (2006) but suggest that developmental order may not be an important factor contributing to maintained accuracy on baseline conditional relations. An interpretation of "dropping out" in terms of differentiated subclasses is discussed. The relevance of the results to the phenomenon known as the differential outcomes effect is also discussed.

Augmenting salivation, but not evaluations, through subliminal conditioning of eating-related words

Correlating eating-related words (CS) with positively valenced words (US+) may augment eating-associated motivational responses (e.g., preingestive salivation) with minimal CS knowledge. We tested this claim using a subliminal conditioning procedure, where CS and US were presented under subliminal and supraliminal visual conditions. Three groups of Brazilian undergraduates (N = 69) viewed eating-related words (CS) or their scrambled counterparts (non-CS) followed by positive (US+) or neutral (US-) words. A free-selection visibility check confirmed that subliminally presented CS and non-CS had not been detected by any group. Participants exposed to CS/US+ pairings produced significantly more saliva relative to participants exposed to CS/US- and non-CS/US+ pairings. Reliable induction of salivation, coupled with null outcomes across evaluation measures, suggests that affective information related to eating can subliminally augment preingestive salivation with minimal deliberation.

Effects of orientation and differential reinforcement on transitive stimulus control

The emergence of transitive relations between stimuli that had never appeared together is a key process underlying concept formation. An unresolved theoretical issue with respect to transitive relations has been to determine whether differential reinforcement of stimulus-stimulus (S-S) relations though matching-to-sample, or contiguous S-S correlations/pairings, is more critical for producing transitivity. The current study inquired whether simple environmental S-S pairings, versus differential reinforcement of S-S relations, versus environmental S-S pairings with an orientation requirement, produced the greatest instances of transitivity. 12 groups of participants were parsed into one of four procedures (matching-to-sample, stimulus-paring, stimulus-pairing-w/response, stimulus-pairing-w/orientation) along one of three training structures (linear, many-to-one, one-to-many). All participants underwent a fixed number of training trials for establishing three, three-member stimulus sets (A1B1C1, A2B2C2, A3B3C3), followed by a single sorting test for AC transitivity. Our results demonstrate orienting towards environmental S-S pairings yield the greatest degree of transitivity. The effectivity of pairing procedures for establishing transitive relations, particularly when compared to matching-to-sample, can inform the development of educational interventions for individuals for whom the latter procedure (involving differential reinforcement) is ineffective.

Using action dynamics to assess competing stimulus control during stimulus equivalence testing

Previous studies have identified potential sources of competing stimulus control in tests for stimulus equivalence. The present experiment employed the Nintendo Wii remote (Wiimote®) to investigate whether such competition would affect suboperant action dynamics (e.g., topographies of equivalence responses). Following one-to-many training on conditional discriminations sufficient to establish three 3-member equivalence classes, participants were presented with a test for equivalence responding that included five different trial types. These included "traditional" equivalence trials, on which the incorrect stimulus had previously been presented as a correct comparison stimulus during training, trials on which a novel unrelated word was provided as the incorrect comparison, and trials on which the incorrect stimulus varied in orthographical and phonological similarity to the sample stimulus. The presence of phonological and orthographic distractor stimuli significantly reduced the probability of equivalence-consistent responding, relative to neutral distractors, but this effect was almost exclusively seen in participants who failed to demonstrate equivalence on traditional equivalence trials. Analyses of correct response trajectories suggested that the prior history of reinforcement for choosing the incorrect stimulus on the traditional equivalence trial gave rise to greater competition than did phonological or orthographic similarity between the sample and incorrect comparisons.