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

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated the transfer of induced mood functions through equivalence relations by means of a musical mood-induction procedure. The research described in this article replicated and extended such work, primarily with the inclusion of a baseline and two types of reversal procedures. First, 16 adult participants were trained and tested for the formation of two three-member equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1 and A2-B2-C2). A musical mood-induction procedure was used to induce happy and sad mood states in the presence of the B stimuli, and a transfer of mood functions test was administered to determine whether the corresponding mood functions had transferred via equivalence to the C stimuli. Participants were then exposed to either Reversal 1, in which only the functions attached to the B stimuli were reversed, or to Reversal 2, in which the structure of the equivalence classes was altered. At all stages throughout the experiment, participants were asked to rate their current mood state by using mood and incentive rating scales. The findings of the current study replicated the results of previous research in demonstrating a clear transfer of mood functions via equivalence relations. This outcome is compared with the existing literature about mood induction and the transfer of mood functions.Stimulus equivalence has attracted considerable empirical and theoretical interest among behavioral researchers in the 3 decades since Sidman's seminal study in 1971. In a typical equivalence study, a participant might be trained to select comparison stimulus B and comparison stimulus C in the presence of sample stimulus A (thus explicitly establishing A-B and A-C relations). Subsequently, the participant may match B to A and C to A (symmetry relations), as well as B to C and C to B (combined symmetry and transitivity or equivalence relations) without further training.

Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit cognition research

“…On the one hand, humans can learn to relate stimuli in a vast number of arbitrarily applicable ways, including relations of equivalence (Cahill et al, 2007), similarity and opposition (Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, & Rhoden, 2008), hierarchy (Gil, Luciano, Ruiz, & Valdivia-Salas, 2012), comparison (Vitale, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Campbell, 2008), temporality (O'Hora et al, 2008), and causality. Relational responding may also include deictic or perspective-taking relations (McHugh, .…”

Contextualizing music to enhance music therapy

“…There are other ways this might be analyzed, and readers are encouraged to pursue these. For example, there are demonstrations of 'mood' being 'transferred' through equivalence relations (Barnes-Homes, Barnes-Homes, Smeets & Luciano, 2004; Cahill, Barnes-Homes, Barnes-Homes, Rodriguez-Valverdes, Luciano & Smeets, 2007). For this paper, however, the whole idea of any music being 'sad' or 'happy' in itself is begging for further social analysis and many musicologists disagree with this way of talking.…”

The Moderating Impact of Distal Regularities on the Effect of Stimulus Pairings

“…RFT researchers usually refer to the former as “relational cues” given that they specify how stimuli and events should be related. These cues can be used to relate stimuli in a near infinite number of ways, from relations based on equivalence or similarity (e.g., “ Hond is the same as dog ”; Cahill et al, 2007) to those based on opposition (e.g., “ Good is the opposite of evil ”; Dymond, Roche, Forsyth, Whelan, & Rhoden, 2008), hierarchy (“ Cat is a type of mammal ”; Gil, Luciano, Ruiz, & Valdivia-Salas, 2012), comparison (“ Fruit is better than candy ”; Vitale, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Campbell, 2008), deictics (“ I am not you ”; McHugh & Stewart, 2012), temporality (“ March comes before May ”; O’Hora et al, 2008), and causality (“ If X then Y ”). Importantly, these relational cues need not always be words; other properties of the environment such as sounds, symbols, shapes, background color (e.g., Gawronski et al, 2010), or verbal rules (e.g., Zanon, De Houwer, & Gast, 2012) may also function in a similar capacity.…”