A Derived Transfer of Mood Functions Through Equivalence Relations

Abstract

The present study investigated the transfer of induced happy and sad mood functions through equivalence relations. Sixteen subjects participated in a combined equivalence and mood induction procedure. In Phase 1, all subjects were trained in 2 conditional discriminations using a matching-to-sample format (i.e., A 1-B1, A2-B2, A 1-C1 , A2-C2). In Phase 2, they were tested for the formation of symmetry (i.e., B1-A 1, B2-A2, C1-A 1, C2-A2), and equivalence relations (i.e. , B1 -C1 , B2-C2, C1-B1, C2-B2) . In Phase 3, a musical mood induction procedure was employed to induce happy and sad mood states in the presence of the B stimuli. Eight subjects were exposed to happy music in the presence of B1, and sad music in the presence of B2, and for the other 8 subjects, this mood induction was reversed. In Phase 4, subjects were exposed to a mood functions test to determine whether the appropriate mood functions had been established with the B stimuli. In Phase 5, they were exposed to a transfer of mood functions test to determine whether the appropriate happy and sad mood functions had transferred via equivalence from the B stimuli to the C stimuli. The mood measures showed that the specific mood functions established in the prese,nce of the B stimuli successfully transferred to the C stimuli for the majority of subjects. This transfer of mood function effect is discussed in terms of its implications for a behavioral understanding of mood changes.Stimulus equivalence has generated a great deal of empirical and theoretical interest amongst the behavior-analytic community in the last two decades. The fundamental feature of the equivalence phenomenon is that it demonstrates the emergence of novel forms of derived stimulus control that are not readily explained by the three-term contingency This work was prepared wh ile Yvonne Barnes-Holmes was funded by the National University of Ireland , Maynooth . We thank Erik Arntzen and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive and helpful comments on an earlier version of the current work. Correspondence should be directed to

The Derived Transfer and Reversal of Mood Functions Through Equivalence Relations: II

“…A 3 × 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA showed nonsignificant main effects for stage (p = .5240), stimulus function (p = .2144), and stimulus type (p = .3769), and no interaction effects at the p < .05 level. Consistent with the previous findings of Barnes-Holmes et al (2004), the incentive measures, although in the predicted direction, did not yield statistically significant effects.…”

“…The current study involved two excerpts of classical music that were used for the induction of happy and sad mood states. These materials were identical to those employed in the original study by Barnes-Holmes et al (2004). The efficacy of these particular musical excerpts for this type of mood induction had also been demonstrated by Samson and Rachman (1989) and by Clark and Teasdale (1985), who reported the induction of appropriate mood states in 94% and 87% of participants, respectively.…”

“…Stage 2 consisted of five phases of training and testing (see Figure 1) that were identical to those employed by Barnes-Holmes et al (2004).…”

“…The self-report mood and incentive rating measures used in the study performed by Barnes-Holmes et al (2004) indicated that the majority of participants showed the derived transfer of the appropriate happy and sad mood functions through the equivalence relations. In effect, participants produced high mood and incentive ratings in the presence of the B and C stimuli that had been directly and indirectly related to happy music, respectively, and low ratings in the presence of the B and C stimuli that had been directly and indirectly related to sad music, respectively.…”

“…Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, and Luciano (2004) reported a transfer of derived mood functions through equivalence relations with the use of a musical mood-induction procedure. In Phase 1 of the study, participants were exposed to conditional discrimination training on four matching-to-sample tasks (i.e., A1-B1, A2-B2, A1-C1, and A2-C2) and underwent subsequent testing in Phase 2 for the formation of two equivalence classes (e.g., A1-B1-C1 and A2-B2-C2).…”