Meaningful Stimuli and the Enhancement of Equivalence Class Formation
- 167 Downloads
Stimulus meaningfulness has been defined by its hedonic valence, denotative (definitional) and connotative (evaluative) properties, and its influence on forming categories called equivalence classes. Positive or negative hedonic value of a meaningful stimulus transfers to the other members of an equivalence class that contains such a stimulus, and also influences likelihood of class formation. The denotative and connotative properties of meaningful stimuli are instantiated by the responses they produced (simple discriminative functions) and by the selection of other related words (conditional discriminative functions). If a meaningless cue acquires one such stimulus control function, and is included in a set of otherwise meaningless stimuli, its inclusion enhances the formation of an equivalence class. These results suggest ways to enhance equivalence class formation in applied settings. When degree of enhancement matches that produced by the inclusion of a meaningful stimulus in a class, class enhancement can be accounted for by the stimulus control functions it serves, as well as its hedonic, denotative, and connotative properties. We also linked equivalence class formation and meaningfulness to semantic networks, relational frame theory, verbal behavior, and naming.
KeywordsEquivalence classes Meaningfulness Enhancement Stimulus control functions Connotation Denotation Hedonic value
This research was funded by the PSC/CUNY Research Awards Program and Oslo and Akershus University College.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Participants and Animal Studies
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards or were determined to be exempt from review by the committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the experiments.
- Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Arntzen, E., Fagerstrøm, A., & Foxall, G. R. (2016b). Equivalence classes and preferences in consumer choice. In G. R. Foxall (Ed.), The Routledge companion to consumer behavior analysis (pp. 65–77). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2015a). Enhancing responding in accordance with stimulus equivalence by the delayed and relational properties of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Belanich, J., & Fields, L. (2003). Generalized equivalence classes as response transfer networks. The Psychological Record, 53, 373–413.Google Scholar
- Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: response latencies for emergent relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46B(2), 187–214.Google Scholar
- Cook, R. G., Cavato, K. K., & Cavato, B. R. (1995). Same-different texture discrimination and concept learning by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 253–260.Google Scholar
- Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergence behavior and stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(06)80110-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fields, L. (2015). Stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes, perceptual categories, and semantic memory networks. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 205–227.Google Scholar
- Fields, L., & Reeve, K. F. (2000). Synthesizing equivalence classes and natural categories from perceptual and relational classes. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Issues in experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 59–84). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
- Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Rosen, D., Varelas, A., Adams, B. J., Belanich, J., & Hobbie, S. A. (1997). Using the simultaneous protocol to study equivalence class formation: the facilitating effects of nodal number and size of previously established equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 367–389.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fields, L., Varelas, A., Reeve, K. F., Belanich, J., Wadhwa, P., DeRosse, P., & Rosen, D. (2000). Effects of prior conditional discrimination training, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence testing on the emergence of new equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grehan, P. M. (1998). Depressed subjects’ formation of mood congruent and incongruent equivalence relations (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.Google Scholar
- Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 285–301.Google Scholar
- Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Relational frame theory: the basic account. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 129–178). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Lea, S. E. G. (1984). In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In H. L. Roitblatt, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 263–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Leslie, J. C., Tierney, K. J., Robinson, C. P., Keenan, M., Watt, A., & Barnes, D. (1993). Differences between clinically anxious and non-anxious subjects in a stimulus equivalence training task involving threat words. The Psychological Record, 43, 153–161.Google Scholar
- Lubow, R. E., Rifkin, B., & Alex, M. (1976). The context effect: the relationship between stimulus preexposure and environmental preexposure determined subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 38–47.Google Scholar
- Mackay, H., & Fields, L. (2009). Syntax, grammatical transformation, and productivity: a synthesis of stimulus sequences, equivalence classes, and contextual control. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding: applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities (pp. 209–236). London: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
- Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Russell, B. (1950). An inquiry into meaning and truth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
- Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: a research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
- Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., & Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 235–246.Google Scholar