The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 239–254 | Cite as

Understanding complex behavior: The transformation of stimulus functions

Article

Abstract

The transformation of stimulus functions is said to occur when the functions of one stimulus alter or transform the functions of another stimulus in accordance with the derived relation between the two, without additional training. This effect has been demonstrated with a number of derived stimulus relations, behavioral functions, experimental preparations, and subject populations. The present paper reviews much of the existing research on the transformation of stimulus functions and outlines a number of important methodological and conceptual issues that warrant further attention. We conclude by advocating the adoption of the generic terminology of relational frame theory to describe both the derived transformation of stimulus functions and relational responding more generally.

Key words

transfer and transformation of stimulus functions derived stimulus relations stimulus equivalence relational frame theory adults and children 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, D., Browne, M., Smeets, P., & Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three- to six-year-old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405–430.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, D., & Holmes, Y. (1991). Radical behaviorism, stimulus equivalence, and human cognition. The Psychological Record, 41, 19–31.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and non-arbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2000). Explaining complex behavior: Two perspectives on the concept of generalized operant classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 251–265.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., Dymond, S., & O’Hora, D. (in press). Multiple stimulus relations and the transformation of stimulus functions. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes-Holmes, D., Healy, O., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Relational frame theory and the relational evaluation procedure: Approaching human language as derived relational responding. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 149–180). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 187–214.Google Scholar
  9. Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Catania, A. C, Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1989). Transfer of function across members of an equivalence class. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 99–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrigan, P. F, & Sidman, M. (1992). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 183–204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Cullinan, V. A., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). A precursor to the relational evaluation procedure: Analyzing stimulus equiva-lence. The Psychological Record, 48, 121–145.Google Scholar
  13. de Rose, J. C, Mcllvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C, & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dixon, M. R., & Hayes, L. J. (1999). A behavioral analysis of dreaming. The Psychological Record, 49, 613–628.Google Scholar
  15. Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–352.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Dougher, M. J., & Markham, M. R. (1994). Stimulus equivalence, functional equivalence, and the transfer of function. In S. C. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 71–90). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dougher, M. J., & Markham, M. R. (1996). Stimulus classes and the untrained acquisition of stimulus functions. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dube, W. V., Mcllvane, W. J., Maguire, R. W., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Stimulus class formation and stimulus-rein-forcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 65–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1994). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251–267.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163–184 (Erratum, 66, 348).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1996). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 46, 271–300.Google Scholar
  22. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1997a). Behavior-analytic approaches to self-awareness. The Psychological Record, 47, 181–200.Google Scholar
  23. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1997b). Interpolated training and testing and derived self-discrimination transfer. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 15, 19–23.Google Scholar
  24. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1998). The effects of prior equivalence testing and detailed verbal instructions on derived self-discrimination transfer: A follow-up study. The Psychological Record, 48, 147–170.Google Scholar
  25. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Buffington, D. M., Yang, W., & Verhave, T. (1996). Response transfer between stimuli in generalized equivalence classes: A model for the establishment of natural kind and fuzzy superordinate categories. The Psychological Record, 46, 665–684.Google Scholar
  26. Friman, P. C, Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1998). Why behavior analysts should study emotion: The example of anxiety. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 137–156.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Gatch, M. B., & Osborne, J. G. (1989). Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 369–378.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, G., Sigurdardottir, Z. G., & Saunders, R. R. (1991). The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinal functions through equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 287–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenway, D. E., Dougher, M. J., & Wulfert, E. (1996). Transfer of consequential functions via stimulus equivalence: Generalization to different testing contexts. The Psychological Record, 46, 131–144.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Hayes, S. C. (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior: The first international institute on verbal relations (pp. 19–40). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hayes, S. C. (1994). Relational frame theory: A functional approach to verbal events. In S. C. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono, (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 11–30). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hayes, S. C, & Barnes, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235–244.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Hayes, S. C, Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (in press). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hayes, S. C., Devany, J. M., Kohlenberg, B. S., Brownstein, A. J., & Shelby, J. (1987). Stimulus equivalence and the symbolic control of behavior. Revista Mexicana de Analisis de la Conducta, 13, 361–374.Google Scholar
  37. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Hayes, G. J. (1998). Moral behavior and the development of verbal regulation. The Behavior Analyst, 21, 253–279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Ruckstahl, L. E. (1998). Relational frame theory and executive function: A behavioral approach. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 279–305). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  39. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Wilson, K. G. (1996). Stimulus classes and stimulus relations: Arbitrarily applicable relational responding as an operant. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 279–300). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the listener as a basis for rule-governance. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 153–190). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1383–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119–137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1993). Some applied implications of a contemporary behavior-analytic account of verbal events. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 283–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Healy, O., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1998). Derived relational responding as an operant: The effects of between-session feedback. The Psychological Record, 48, 511–536.Google Scholar
  45. Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C, & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes through equivalence classes: A possible model of social stereotyping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 505–518.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Lazar, R. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381–392.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Lipkens, R., Hayes, S. C, & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Madden, G. J., Chase, P. N., & Joyce, J. H. (1998). Making sense of sensitivity in the human operant literature. The Behavior Analyst, 21, 1–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Mcllvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (1990). Do stimulus classes exist before they are tested? The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pilgrim, C. (1998). The human subject. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 15–44). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pilgrim, C., Chambers, L., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: II. Children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 239–254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations or a correlation of classes? In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 173–195). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rehfeldt, R.A., & Hayes, L. J. (1998a). The op-erant-respondent distinction revisited: Toward an understanding of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 187–210.Google Scholar
  56. Rehfeldt, R. A., & Hayes, L. J. (1998b). Untrained temporal differentiation and equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 48, 481–509.Google Scholar
  57. Rehfeldt, R. A., & Hayes, L. J. (2000). The long-term retention of generalized equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 405–428.Google Scholar
  58. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned sexual arousal functions in accordance with arbitrary relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Roche, B., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Incongruous stimulus pairing and conditional discrimination training: Effects on relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 143–160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control over the derived transformation of discriminative and sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50, 267–291.Google Scholar
  61. Saunders, R. R., Drake, K. M., & Spradlin, J. E. (1999). Equivalence class establishment, expansion, and modification in preschool children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 195–214.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–840.Google Scholar
  63. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Sigurdardottir, Z. G., Green, G., & Saunders, R. R. (1990). Equivalence classes generated by sequence training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 47–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Smeets, P. M., Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1997). Functional equivalence in children: Derived stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus relations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Wasserman, E. A., & DeVolder, C. L. (1993). Similarity- and nonsimilarity-based conceptualization in children and pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 779–793.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267–281.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyAnglia Polytechnic UniversityCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Rehabilitation InstituteSouthern Illinois University at CarbondaleCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations