Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Equivalence Class Formation is Influenced by Stimulus Contingency

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three groups of subjects received training in stimulus equivalence classes with a respondent-type training procedure. Stimulus contingency was positive for the first group, zero for the second, and negative for the third. Afterwards, all participants were tested with a matching-to-sample task for four baseline relations (A1-B1, A2-B2, C1-B1, and C2-B2), four symmetry relations (B1-A1, B2-A2, B1-C1, and C2-B2), and four combined symmetry and transitivity relations (A1-C1, A2-C2, C1-A1, and C2-A2). After this, they were retrained and retested twice. Explicit reinforcement was not programmed during the training or testing phases. The number of subjects who learned the baseline relations and showed the emergence of derived relations was higher in the positive contingency group than in the zero or negative contingency groups, although in all cases at least one retraining phase was required in order to reach the criteria. This finding contributes to the literature suggesting that stimulus pairing is the fundamental variable underlying emergent stimulus functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Even though it is being assumed, in the present example, that subjects have named the stimuli, it is also suggested that this behavior of describing the relations among them functions as additional pairing trials since, as aforementioned, naming the stimuli (and verbal behavior in general) seems not to be essential for derived relations to emerge (Delgado et al., 2011; Tonneau & González, 2004, Experiment 4).

  2. Due to time constraints, the experimental session could not last more than an hour.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.12.1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D., Smeets, P. M., & Leader, G. (1996). New procedures for establishing emergent matching performances in children and adults: Implications for stimulus equivalence. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals: Advances in psychology (pp. 153–171). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boelens, H. (2002). Studying stimulus equivalence: defense of the two-choice procedure. The Psychological Record, 52, 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning (4th interim ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, M. C., & Hayes, L. J. (2004). A comparison of match-to-sample and respondent-type training of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 54, 579–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, D., & Hayes, L. J. (2013). The integration of learning paradigms by way of a non-causal analysis of behavioral events. Conductual, 1, 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, D., & Hayes, L. J. (2014). An integrative approach to learning processes: revisiting substitution of functions. The Psychological Record, 64, 625–637. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0071-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, D., & Medina, I. F. (2011). Efectos de dos tipos de entrenamiento respondiente sobre la formación de relaciones de equivalencia. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 37(1), 33–50. doi:10.5514/rmac.v37.i1.19475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, D., & Medina, I. F. (2013). Cuando la contigüidad no es suficiente: bloqueo en relaciones de equivalencia. Universitas Psychologica, 12, 613–626. doi:10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY12-2.ccns.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, D., Medina, I. F., & Rozo, M. J. (2013). Test de la habituación a las condiciones estimulativas del procedimiento de igualación a la muestra. Suma Psicológica, 20, 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, D., Medina, I. F., & Soto, J. S. (2011). El lenguaje como mediador de la transferencia de funciones: ¿es necesario nominar para relacionar? Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 37(2), 31–52. doi:10.5514/rmac.v37.i2.26138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Donahoe, J. W., Palmer, D. C., & Burgos, J. E. (1997). The S-R issue: its status in behavior analysis and in Donahoe and Palmer’s Learning and Complex Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 193–211. doi:10.1901/jeab.1997.67-193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Durlach, P. J. (1983). Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 374–389. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.9.4.374.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eikeseth, S., & Smith, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes in high-functioning autistic children: The role of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 123–133. doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Green, G., & Saunders, R. R. (1998). Stimulus equivalence. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 229–262). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. A., & Chase, P. N. (1991). The relationship between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 107–119.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. J., & Green, G. (1990). Development of conditional and equivalence relations without differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 225–237. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-225.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19–40). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, L. J. (1992). Equivalence as process. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 97–108). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001a). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Townsend, R. C. (2001b). Thinking, problem solving, and pragmatic verbal analysis. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 87–102). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241. doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Layng, M. P., & Chase, P. N. (2001). Stimulus-stimulus pairing, matching-to-sample testing, and emergent relations. The Psychological Record, 51, 605–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader, G., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1996). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 46, 685–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader, G., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001a). Establishing fraction-decimal equivalence using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 51, 151–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader, G., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001b). Matching-to-sample and respondent-type training as methods for producing equivalence relations: isolating the critical variable. The Psychological Record, 51, 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader, G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure III. The Psychological Record, 50, 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minster, S. T., Elliffe, D., & Muthukumaraswamy, S. D. (2011). Emergent stimulus relations depend on stimulus correlation and not on reinforcement contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 327–342. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.95-327.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Minster, S. T., Jones, M., Elliffe, D., & Muthukumaraswamy, S. D. (2006). Stimulus equivalence: testing Sidman’s (2000) theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 371–391. doi:10.1901/jeab.2006.15-05.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Papini, M. R., & Bitterman, M. E. (1990). The role of contingency in classical conditioning. Psychological Review, 97, 396–403. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, V., Gutiérrez, M. T., García, A., & Gómez, J. (2005). Procesos psicológicos básicos. Un análisis funcional. Madrid: Pearson Educación, S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeldt, R. A., Clayton, M., & Hayes, L. J. (1998a). Blocking the formation of 5-member equivalence classes using complex samples. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 279–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeldt, R. A., Dixon, M. R., Hayes, L. J., & Steele, A. (1998b). Stimulus equivalence and the blocking effect. The Psychological Record, 48, 647–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeldt, R. A., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). The operant-respondent distinction revisited: toward an understanding of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 187–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A. (1966). Predictability and number of pairings in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 383–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74, 71–80. doi:10.1037/h0024109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: it’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43, 151–160. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.3.151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A. (2000). Associative changes with a random CS-US relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A., & Lolordo, V. M. (1965). Inhibition of avoidance behavior. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 59, 406–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13. doi:10.1044/jshr.1401.05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1980). A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 285–289. doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.33-285.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1992). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15–27). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, P. M., Leader, G., & Barnes, D. (1997). Establishing stimulus classes in adults and children using a respondent-type training procedure: a follow-up study. The Psychological Record, 47, 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Lipkens, R. (2001). Relations among relations: Analogies, metaphors, and stories. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 73–86). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonneau, F. (2001a). Equivalence relations: A critical analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 1–33. doi:10.1080/15021149.2001.11434165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonneau, F. (2001b). Equivalence relations: a reply. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 99–128. doi:10.1080/15021149.2001.11434185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonneau, F. (2002). Who can understand relational frame theory? A reply to Barnes-Holmes and Hayes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 3, 95–102. doi:10.1080/15021149.2002.11434209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonneau, F., Arreola, F., & Martínez, A. G. (2006). Function transformation without reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 393–405. doi:10.1901/jeab.2006.49-05.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tonneau, F., & González, C. (2004). Function transfer in human operant experiments: The role of stimulus pairings. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 239–255. doi:10.1901/jeab.2004.81-239.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wulfert, E., Dougher, M. J., & Greenway, D. E. (1991). Protocol analysis of the correspondence of verbal behavior and equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 489–504. doi:10.1901/jeab.1991.56-489.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125–144. doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present experiment was supported by an undergraduate grant from the Consejo Interuniversitario Nacional (CIN) and by the University of Buenos Aires (UBACyT-Code: 20020130100861BA). The authors would like to thank Dr. Mauricio Papini, Camila Cavalli, and Daniel Low for their useful comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Matías Avellaneda, Joaquín Menéndez, Mateo Santillán, Federico Sánchez, Sebastián Idesis, Victoria Papagna & Alberto Iorio

  2. Laboratory of Behavioral Biology, Institute of Biology and Experimental Medicine, Vuelta de Obligado 2490, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1428

    Matías Avellaneda, Joaquín Menéndez, Victoria Papagna & Alberto Iorio

Authors
  1. Matías Avellaneda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joaquín Menéndez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mateo Santillán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federico Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sebastián Idesis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Victoria Papagna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alberto Iorio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matías Avellaneda.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by Consejo Interuniversitario Nacional (CIN) and University of Buenos Aires (UBACyT-Code: 20020130100861BA).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avellaneda, M., Menéndez, J., Santillán, M. et al. Equivalence Class Formation is Influenced by Stimulus Contingency. Psychol Rec 66, 477–487 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0187-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0187-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation