Conceptual Differences in the Analysis of Stimulus Equivalence

Clayton, Michael; Hayes, Linda J.

doi:10.1007/bf03395312

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further methodological precision can only serve to broaden ou r theoretical scope by encouraging researchers to realize the constraints of previous theories (Clayton & Hayes, 1999). The somewhat lofty goal of this endeavor is to develop a theory that is consistent within itself and which explains all observable phenomena.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of Match-to-Sample and Respondent-Type training of equivalence classes

Clayton

Hayes

2004

Psychol Rec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout the 25-year history of research on stimulus equivalence, one feature of the training procedure has remained constant, namely, the requirement of operant responding during the training procedures. The present investigation compared the traditional match-to-sample (MTS) training with a more recent respondent-type (ReT) procedure. Another consistent feature of the equivalence paradigm is the apparent stipulation that both training and testing must occur before equivalence emerges. In this respect, a more idiosyncratic measure of class acquisition would be desirable. Multidimensional scaling, as a class of exploratory techniques, is introduced as a possible addition to the stimulus equivalence paradigm.Results from 35 subjects in 3 experiments suggest that while the respondent-type training method can be an effective procedure, the operant-based match-to-sample method was clearly more effective in tests for symmetry, equivalence, and extended equivalence. The addition of a scaling procedure proved valuable and showed that both training methods facilitated the emergence of derived relations to varying degrees. Results are evaluated in relation to the importance of broadening the necessary and sufficient training conditions and response requirements for the emergence of stimulus equivalence.When verbally able humans are taught a series of interrelated conditional discriminations, the stimuli involved often become related to each other in untrained ways. For example, when a subject is taught to select a stimulus B in the presence of a stimulus A, and additionally, to select a stimulus C in the presence of stimul us A, it is likely that the subject will also select A in the presence of B (symmetry), A in the presence of C (symmetry), and B in the presence of C and C in the presence of B (equivalence) without explicit training to do so.Portions of this research were conducted as part of Michael Clayton's doctoral research program under supervision of Linda J. Hayes. Much appreciation is owed to Jiang Qian and Dermot Barnes-Holmes for their contributions to this project. We also thank William Dube and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments. Address correspondence to Michael

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of Match-to-Sample and Respondent-Type training of equivalence classes

Clayton

Hayes

2004

Psychol Rec

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A broader theoretical issue that is raised by these data concerns Sidman's (2000) recent assertion that the theater of controversy in the area of derived stimulus relations should be shifted from the usual philosophical and logical differences among the major theories to more empirical grounds (see also Clayton & Hayes, 1999). This is a rather perplexing statement in light of the current data and similar empirical studies, published over the last decade, that have demonstrated control in accordance with multiple stimulus relations (Barnes, Hegarty, & Smeets, 1997;Barnes & Keenan , 1993;Barnes-Holmes, Healy, & Hayes, 2000;Dymond & Barnes, 1995Roche et aI., 2000;Steele & Hayes, 1991 ;Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, & Smeets, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response Latencies to Multiple Derived Stimulus Relations: Testing Two Predictions of Relational Frame Theory

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.When human subjects are trained on a series of conditional discriminations, the stimuli involved may control responding in ways that are not readily predicted using traditional behavioral principles. For example, if choosing the arbitrary stimuli, B1 and C1, is reinforced on separate trials, given a further stimulus, A 1, then, the presentation of B1 or C1 may reliably occasion the choosing of A1 (symmetry) without reinforcement. Furthermore, the presentation of B1 may control choosing C1, and the presentation of C1 may control choosing B1 (combined symmetry and transitivity), again without reinforcement. These effects are collectively referred to as stimulus equivalence and the stimuli A 1, B 1, and C1 are said to participate in an equivalence relation (Barnes, 1994;Barnes & Holmes, 1991;Hayes, 1991;Sidman, 1971Sidman, , 1990).Requests for reprints should be addressed to Bryan Roche, Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Maynooth , Co. Kildare, Ireland. The authors thank Michael Clayton and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. The first three authors say farewell to Cork, where so many ideas were born .

show abstract

“…For two decades, behavior analysts have studied the potential of Naming with respect to how it may or may not facilitate certain emergent categorization (Arntzen, 2004;Clayton & Hayes, 1999;Dugdale & Lowe, 1990;Fields et al, 2003;Guess & Baer, 1973;Hayes, 1989;Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001;Horne et al, 2004Horne et al, , 2006Keller & Bucher, 1979;Lee, 1981;Lowe & Beasty, 1987;Miguel & Petursdottir, 2009;Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2008;Randell & Remington, 2006;Shusterman & Kastak, 1993;Sidman, 1986Sidman, , 1992Smeets & Striefel, 1976;Stone, Miguel, & Gould, 2006;Stromer & McKay, 1996;Wynn & Smith, 2003;Zentall, Galizio, & Critchfield, 2002). See Miguel and Petursdottir for a comprehensive review of that literature.…”

Section: Naming As An Independent Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

A Rose by Naming: How We May Learn How to Do It

Greer

Longano

2010

Analysis Verbal Behav

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Naming appears to be the source of the explosion in language development and involves the integration of the initially separate listener and speaker responses. This integration has a role in the development of reading, writing, and the following and construction of verbal algorithms that make types of complex human behavior possible. Considerable research has investigated the role of Naming in the emergence of derived relations. Recent research has also investigated the emergence of Naming itself. We describe these experiments and the experiences that function to induce Naming. We also describe evidence about preverbal developmental cusps that are foundational to the emergence of Naming and the evidence on its reinforcement sources. The isolation of the role of the environment in the emergence of Naming identifies stimuli that were said to be missing in accounts that were critical of Skinner's (1957) account of verbal behavior. These arguments purported that the phenomenon was not attributable to learning because of the ''poverty of the stimulus.'' Some of the relevant stimuli now appear to be identified.

show abstract

Conceptual Differences in the Analysis of Stimulus Equivalence

Cited by 29 publications

References 39 publications

A comparison of Match-to-Sample and Respondent-Type training of equivalence classes

A comparison of Match-to-Sample and Respondent-Type training of equivalence classes

Response Latencies to Multiple Derived Stimulus Relations: Testing Two Predictions of Relational Frame Theory

A Rose by Naming: How We May Learn How to Do It

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About