A Transformation of Self‐discrimination Response Functions in Accordance With the Arbitrarily Applicable Relations of Sameness, More Than, and Less Than

Abstract

In Experiment 1, 2 experimental subjects were given pretraining of nonarbitrary relations that brought their responses under the control of four contextual stimuli; same, opposite, more than, and less than. One control subject was not exposed to this pretraining. The 2 pretrained subjects and the 3rd nonpretrained subject then received training in six arbitrary relations, the following four relations being the most critical: same/A1-B1, same/A1-C1, less than/A1-B2, more than/A1-C2. All 3 subjects were then tested for seven derived relations, the following three relations being the most important: same/B1-C1, more than/B1-C2, less than/B1-B2. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the derived relations. One of the stimuli (B1) from the relational network and two novel stimuli (X1 and X2) were then used to train three different self-discrimination responses on three complex schedules of reinforcement. That is, all 3 subjects were trained to pick X1 if they had not emitted a response, to pick B1 if they had emitted one response only, and to pick X2 if they had emitted two responses only. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the predicted transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the relations of sameness, more than, and less than (i.e., no response, pick B2; one response only, pick C1; and two responses only, pick C2). In Experiment 2, 2 new subjects were employed, and the arbitrary relational training and testing phases were modified to control for a procedural artifact that may have contributed to the results of the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. The pattern of results support the utility of a relational frames approach to understanding derived stimulus relations.

A Transformation of Functions in Accordance with the Nonarbitrary Relational Properties of Sexual Stimuli

“…These data extend previous research (Dymond & Barnes, 1995Roche & Barnes, 1997;Whelan et al, 2006) by demonstrating a transformation of functions in accordance with the comparative relational frame of More than and Less than. However, there are a number of important differences between the current procedures and those used in previous transformation research.…”

“…To date, a wide variety of stimulus function transformations has been demonstrated in accordance with equivalence relations (e.g., Barnes & Keenan, 1993;Dougher, Augustson, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994;Dougher, Perkins, Greenway, Koons, & Chiasson, 2002;Dymond & Barnes, 1995;Rehfeldt & Hayes, 1998;Smeets & Barnes-Holmes, 2003; see Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000, for a review) and derived relations other than equivalence, such as Sameness, Opposition, and Difference (Dymond & Barnes, 1996;Steele & Hayes, 1991;Roche & Barnes, 1996Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004), More than and Less than (Dymond & Barnes, 1995;O'Hora, Roche, Barnes-Holmes, & Smeets, 2002;Whelan, Barnes-Holmes, & Dymond, 2006), and Before and After (Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond, & O'Hora, 2001; O'Hora, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, & Smeets, 2004). For example, Roche and Barnes (1997) exposed participants to a relational pretraining procedure to establish contextual functions of Same and Opposite for two arbitrary stimuli.…”

“…Previous research has demonstrated the transformation of both selfdiscriminative and consequential functions but not sexual stimulus functions, in accordance with multiple stimulus relations of More than and Less than (Dymond & Barnes, 1995;Whelan et al, 2006), and no study to date has examined the complex transformation of functions by the nonarbitrary properties of formally related stimuli. With the present study we sought to extend the analysis of the transformation of stimulus functions in accordance with complex networks of More than and Less than relations.…”

Derived Avoidance Learning: Transformation of Avoidance Response Functions in Accordance with Same and Opposite Relational Frames

“…it is important to note that the present study presented all possible probe trials (i.e., B-c and c-B) during the arbitrary relational test, whereas previous transformation of function studies (e.g., Dymond & Barnes, 1996;Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004) have presented the B-c probes only. responding in accordance with the predicted relational network required that subjects would (a) choose c1 given B1 in the presence of SamE; (b) choose B1 given c1 in the presence of SamE (c1 and B1 are both the same as A1 and therefore the same as each other); (c) choose c2 given B2 in the presence of SamE; (d) choose B2 given c2 in the presence of SamE (c2 and B2 are both opposite to A1 and therefore the same as each other); (e) choose c2 given B1 in the presence of OPPOSITE; (f) choose B1 given c2 in the presence of OPPOSITE (c2 is opposite to A1, and B1 is the same as A1, and therefore c2 is opposite of B1); (g) choose c1 given B2 in the presence of OPPOSITE; and choose B2 given c1 in the presence of OPPOSITE (c1 is the same as A1, and B2 is opposite to A1, and therefore c1 is opposite to B2).…”

“…thus, there are likely many more ways for derived avoidance responses to emerge in the world outside the laboratory than those highlighted by Augustson and Dougher (1997). Several studies conducted under the rubric of relational frame theory have since provided evidence that it is possible for human participants to respond in accordance with relations other than equivalence, such as same and opposite (e.g., Dymond & Barnes, 1996;roche & Barnes, 1997;Steele & Hayes, 1991;Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004).…”