Stimuli with identical contextual functions taught independently become functionally equivalent

Abstract

A novel learning process that does not require stimulus associations was explored in humans. The hypothesis was that two contextual stimuli taught in separate settings, with different stimuli, become equivalent if they accomplish identical functions with regard to the relations between the stimuli presented with them. The procedure consisted of : (a) first teaching an AB conditional discrimination (e.g., match A1 to B1 and A2 to B2) and then teaching a second-order XAB conditional discrimination in which X1 indicated performing the same selections as in AB and X2 indicated selecting the alternative comparison (e.g., match A1 to B2 and A2 to B1); (b) repeating the procedure with completely new stimuli, YHJ, in which the functions of the Y stimuli were identical to those of X; and (c) conducting a final probe under extinction to verify the equivalence between the X and the Y stimuli. Three experiments were conducted to explore the process and to rule out the influence of alternative variables. Out of these, 13 of the 14 participants matched the stimuli to the same contextual functions. Thus, the hypothesis was verified. These results demonstrate that humans are able to match stimuli according to their functions in relation to other stimuli. This process may be very much involved in language; for example, understanding that words or clauses that have been learned in separate contexts and with separate stimuli share the same meaning. Understanding this process may help to identify learning or developmental problems, such as those shown by persons with autism, and help to treat them.

Contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence explains apparent arbitrary applicable relational responding in accordance with sameness and opposition

“…The tests presented in Phase 1 demonstrated that X1 and X2 became generalized contextual cues for maintaining and reversing new conditional discriminations. These results replicated those of previous studies (Pérez-González et al, 2014;Pérez-González et al, 2015;Pérez-González & Martínez, 2007;. The tests presented in Phase 2 suggest that the training provided in Phase 1 also made of X1 and X2 cues for equivalence and nonequivalence.…”

“…Our general strategy consisted of demonstrating that two stimuli pretrained as contextual cues for equivalence and nonequivalence-instead of for sameness and opposition-can control the same type of derived responding as SAME and OPPOSITE did in RFT studies. In Phase 1, a stimulus X1 was pretrained as a cue for maintaining previously trained conditional discriminations, and a stimulus X2 was pretrained as a cue for reversing those discriminations (Pérez-González, Álvarez, Calleja, & Fernández, 2014;Pérez-González, Díaz, Fernández-García, & Baizán, 2015;Pérez-González & Martínez, 2007;. This pretraining potentially makes of X1 and X2 cues for equivalence and nonequivalence (see Pérez-González et al, 2014;.…”

Analysis of apparent demonstrations of responding in accordance with relational frames of sameness and opposition

“…Consequently, the processes underlying apparent AARR in accordance with sameness and opposition have, arguably, not been properly analyzed, even though 30 years have passed since the first study on this topic. Recently, we offered an alternative account of apparent AARR in accordance with sameness and opposition based on contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence (Alonso‐Álvarez & Pérez‐González, ; see also Lynch & Green, ; Meehan & Fields, ; Pérez‐González, Álvarez, Calleja, & Fernández, ; Pérez‐González, Díaz, Fernández‐García, & Baizán, ; Pérez‐González & Martínez, ; Pérez‐González & Serna, ; Serna & Pérez‐González, ) and responding by exclusion (e.g., Johnson & Sidman, ; Stromer & Osborne, ). We explained apparent AARR in accordance with sameness and opposition as follows: Training Same as a cue for selecting comparisons identical to the samples (e.g., matching a short line to a short line, and a long line to a long line) could establish Same as a cue for equivalence, because identity matching and equivalence usually occur in the same contexts (Sidman, ).…”

A brief report on the Verbal Behavior Curriculum (VBC) to teach children with autism and other language disorders.

“…Protocols are designed to establish and strengthen behaviors that lead to attachment and participatory behaviors and include descriptions of how to shape adult proximity and interaction, shape facial expressions and voices to have a reinforcing value through a combination of operant and respondent pairing contingencies (Greer, Singer-Dudek, & Gautreaux, 2006; Nuzzolo-Gomez, Leonard, Ortiz, Rivera-Valdes, & Greer, 2002; Shillingsburg, Hollander, Yosick, Bowen, & Muskat, 2015). Other protocols teach the essential tact repertoires for naming, categorizing, and describing the features and functions of objects that are subsequently used to teach rudimentary social/conversational skills (Greer, Stolfi, Chavez-Brown, & Rivera-Valdez, 2005; Greer, Stolfi, & Pistoljevic, 2007; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2008; Pérez-González, Díaz, Fernández-García, & Baizán, 2015; Pérez-González, Garcia-Asenjo, Williams, and Carnerero, 2007; Pérez-González, Hervzlikowicz, and Williams, 2008; Williams, Carnerero, & Pérez-González, 2006; Williams, Pérez-González, and Vogt, 2003).…”