Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 13–24 | Cite as

Implicit and Explicit Measures of Transformation of Function from Facial Expressions of Fear and of Happiness via Equivalence Relations

  • William F. PerezEmail author
  • João Henrique de Almeida
  • Julio C. de Rose
  • Andrea H. Dorigon
  • Eduardo L. de Vasconcellos
  • Marco A. da Silva
  • Najra D. P. Lima
  • Roberta B. M. de Almeida
  • Rodrigo N. M. Montan
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Original Article

Abstract

Studies on equivalence relations have suggested that abstract symbols might acquire emotional functions when related to facial expressions. The present study aimed to investigate the transformation of emotional functions from facial expressions of fear and of happiness to abstract stimuli via equivalence relations. A delayed matching-to-sample task established two equivalence classes between facial expressions of emotions and nonsense abstract stimuli: A1(Fear)-B1-C1-D1; A2(Happiness)-B2-C2-D2. After relational training (AB, AC, CD) and equivalence tests (BD, DB), the participants evaluated the meaning of one nonsense stimulus from each class (D1 and D2) by means of a semantic differential and an Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Results from both the semantic differential and the IRAP supported the conclusion that the emotional functions of the faces, in terms of fear and happiness, had transformed via the equivalence classes to the D stimuli. Results are discussed in terms of the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding.

Keywords

Equivalence relations Transformation of function Semantic differential IRAP Facial expression 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present research was supported by means of a research funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation on behalf of William F. Perez (FAPESP 2016/05935-6). The second author was supported by a post-doc fellowship from the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP 2014/01874-7 and 2017/10037-0). Preparation of the manuscript was supported by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq, Grants 573972/2008-7 and 465686/2014-1) and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Grant 2008/57705-8), both for Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino (INCT-ECCE), chaired by Deisy G. de Souza (UFSCar).

Funding

The present research was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP 2014/01874-7, 2016/05935-6, 2017/10037-0, 2008/57705-8) and by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq, Grants 573972/2008-7 and 465686/2014-1); the present study is also part of the research program of the Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino (INCT-ECCE).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare 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. The research is approved by the Brazilian platform for ethical committees (Plataforma Brasil, CAAE # 54489116.4.0000.5504).

Informed Consent

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

References

  1. Augustson, E. M., & Dougher, M. J. (1997). The transfer of avoidance evoking functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 3, 181–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7916(97)00008-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hussey, I., & Luciano, C. (2016). Relational frame theory: Finding its historical and philosophical roots and reflecting upon its future development: An introduction to part II. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 117–128). West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Luciano, C., & McEnteggart, C. (2017). From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6, 434–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R., & Stewart, I. (2006). Do you really know what you believe? Developing the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a direct measure of implicit beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, 32, 169–177.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes-Holmes, D., Finn, M., McEnteggart, C., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2018). Derived stimulus relations and their role in a behavior-analytic account of human language and cognition. Behavior Analyst, 40, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0124-7.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Boorman, J., Oliver, J. E., Thompson, M., McEnteggart, C., & Coulter, C. (2018). Using conceptual developments in RFT to direct case formulation and clinical intervention: Two case summaries. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 7, 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2007). Medida do grau de relacionamento entre estímulos equivalentes. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 20, 252–258.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722007000200011.
  8. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2008). Transferência de “significado” de expressões faciais apresentadas brevemente para estímulos abstratos equivalentes a elas. Acta Comportamentalia, 16, 223–241.Google Scholar
  9. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2009). Assessing the relatedness of equivalent stimuli through the semantic differential. The Psychological Record, 59, 563–590.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2011). An “Orwellian” account of stimulus equivalence. Are some stimuli “more equivalent” than others? European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 121–134.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2012). Equivalent stimuli are more strongly related after training with delayed matching than after simultaneous matching: A study using the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP). The Psychological Record, 62, 41–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bortoloti, R., Rodrigues, N. C., Cortez, M. D., Pimentel, N., & de Rose, J. C. (2013). Overtraining increases the strength of equivalence relations. Psychology & Neuroscience, 6, 357–364.  https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chawla, N., & Ostafin, B. (2007). Experiential avoidance as a functional dimensional approach to psychopathology: An empirical review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 871–890.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. de Almeida, J. H., Bortoloti, R., Ferreira, P. R. S., Schelini, P. W., & de Rose, J. C. (2014). Análise das propriedades psicométricas de instrumento de diferencial semântico [Psychometric analysis of a semantic differential instrument]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27, 272–281.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.20142720.Google Scholar
  15. de Almeida, J. H., & de Rose, J. C. (2015). Changing the meaningfulness of abstract stimuli by the reorganization of equivalence classes: Effects of delayed matching. The Psychological Record, 65, 451–461.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0120-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Rose, J. C., & Bortoloti, R. (2007). A equivalência de estímulos como modelo de significado. Acta Comportamentalia, 15, 83–102.Google Scholar
  17. de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discriminations established by indirect relations to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.50-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. De Schryver, M., Hussey, I., De Neve, J., Cartwright, A., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2018). The PI IRAP: An alternative scoring algorithm for the IRAP using a probabilistic semiparametric effect size measure. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 7(1), 97–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dougher, M., Augustson, E., Markham, M., Greenway, D., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: The transformation of stimulus functions. Behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dymond, S., Roche, B., & Bennett, M. (2013). Relational frame theory and experimental psychopathology. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory: Research & application (pp. 199–218). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  22. Dymond, S., Schlund, M. W., Roche, B., & Whelan, R. (2014). The spread of fear: Symbolic generalization mediates graded threat-avoidance in specific phobia. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 247–259.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.800124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Pictures of facial affect. Paul Ekman Group. Retrieved from www.paulekman.com.
  24. Finn, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & McEnteggart, C. (2018). Exploring the single-trial-type-dominance-effect on the IRAP: Developing a differential arbitrarily applicable relational responding effects (DAARRE) model. The Psychological Record, 68, 11–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0262-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. K., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119–137.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.56-119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. (2012). Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit cognition research. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1, 17–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes, S., Hussey, I., Corrigan, B., Jolie, K., Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Faking revisited: Exerting strategic control over performance on the implicit relational assessment procedure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 632–648.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hussey, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, I. (2015). From relational frame theory to implicit attitudes and back again: Clarifying the link between RFT and IRAP research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2, 11–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, Y., McEnteggart, C., & Finn, M. (2018). Exploring differential trial-type effects and the impact of a read-aloud procedure on deictic relational responding on the IRAP. The Psychological Record, 68, 163–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0276-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leech, A., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Madden, L. (2016). The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of spider fear, avoidance, and approach. The Psychological Record, 66, 337–349.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0176-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Ruiz, F. J., Rodrıguez-Valverde, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Dougher, M. J., & Gutierrez-Martinez, O. (2014). Effects of an acceptance/defusion intervention on experimentally induced generalized avoidance: A laboratory demonstration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 94–111.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of spider fear. The Psychological Record, 62, 263–278.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsson, A., & Phelps, E. A. (2004). Learned fear of “unseen” faces after Pavlovian, observational, and instructed fear. Psychological Science, 15, 822–828.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00762.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Olsson, A., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Social learning of fear. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 1092–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Osgood, C. E., & Suci, G. I. (1952). A measure of relation determined by both mean difference and profile information. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 251–262.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062981.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. I., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  39. Parr, L. A., Winslow, J. T., Hopkins, W. D., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Recognizing facial cues: Individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, 47–60.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.114.1.47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Perez, W. F., de Almeida, J., & de Rose, J. C. (2015). Transformation of meaning through relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 65, 679–689.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0138-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perez, W. F., Fidalgo, A. P., Kovac, R., & Nico, Y. C. (2015). The transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 511–523.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Perez, W. F., Tomanari, G. Y., & Vaidya, M. (2015). Effects of select and reject control on equivalence class formation and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104, 146–166.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Perez, W. F., Kovac, R., Nico, Y., Caro, D. M., Fidalgo, A. P., Linares, I. ... de Rose, J. C. (2017). The transfer of Crel contextual control (same opposite, less then, more than) through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 108, 318–334.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.164.
  44. Power, P. M., Harte, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2017). Combining the implicit relational assessment procedure and the recording of event related potentials in the analysis of racial bias: A preliminary study. The Psychological Record, 67, 499–506.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0252-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roddy, S., Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, B. (2011). Facial reactions reveal that slim is good but fat is not bad: Implicit and explicit measures of body-size bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 688–694.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analyst, 22, 11–18.Google Scholar
  47. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research history. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  48. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Silveira, M. V., Mackay, H. A., & de Rose, J. C. (2018). Measuring the transfer of meaning through members of equivalence classes merged via a class-specific reinforcement procedure. Learning & Behavior, 46, 157–170.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-017-0298-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vahey, N. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). A first test of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of self-esteem: Irish prisoner groups and university students. The Psychological Record, 59, 371–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vahey, N. A., Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2015). A meta-analysis of criterion effects for the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) in the clinical domain. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 48, 59–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.01.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Vervoort, E., Vervliet, B., Bennett, M., & Baeyens, F. (2014). Generalization of human fear acquisition and extinction within a novel arbitrary stimulus category. PLoS One, 9(5), e96569.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096569.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • William F. Perez
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • João Henrique de Almeida
    • 2
    • 3
  • Julio C. de Rose
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrea H. Dorigon
    • 1
  • Eduardo L. de Vasconcellos
    • 1
  • Marco A. da Silva
    • 1
  • Najra D. P. Lima
    • 1
  • Roberta B. M. de Almeida
    • 1
  • Rodrigo N. M. Montan
    • 1
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes
    • 4
  1. 1.Paradigma – Centro de Ciências e Tecnologia do ComportamentoSão Paulo - SPBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino (INCT-ECCE)São Carlos - SPBrazil
  3. 3.Universidade Federal de São CarlosSão CarlosBrazil
  4. 4.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations