Abstract
The current experiment investigated the effect of differential training histories on responses to a 5-term linear chain of nonsense syllables (described here with sequential, alphabetical characters; A<B<C<D<E) across unreinfonced probe trials. Participants’ responses to nonarbitrary stimulus relations of Morethan and Less-than were first brought under contextual control. Participants were then exposed to 1 of 3 training structures, in which each training structure was defined by Ithe trial types that were presented: Less-More (A<B | B<C | D>C | E>D), All-Less (A<B | B<C | C<D | D<E) and All-More (B>A | C>B | D>C | E>D. The contextual cues served as sample stimuli, and 2 nonsense words as comparison stimuli. Twenty unreinforced probe trials were subsequently administered on all possible derived relations: directly trained, mutually entailed, and 1-, 2- and 3-node combinatorially entailed relation types. Comparisons of response latencies among 1-, 2-, and 3-node combinatorially entailed relations, for accurate performances on all 20 test trials, indicated that the former produced significantly longer latencies than the latter 2 relations. Comparisons of response latencies across the 3 training structures indicated that latencies were significantly lower in the All-More condition relative to both the Less-More and the All-Less conditions. The effects of nodal distance are readily predicted by both associative accounts and Relational Frame Theory, but the effect of training structure is readily predicted only by the latter theory. The reported findings are also broadly in accordance with previous studies on relational inferences reported in the literature from mainstream cognitive psychology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BARNES, D., (1989). Behavior-behavior analysis, human schedule performance, and radical behaviorism. The Psychological Record, 39, 339–350.
BARNES, 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 analysis of human behavior (pp. 149–180). Reno, NV: Context Press.
BARNES-HOLMES, D., HAYES, S. C., DYMOND, S., & O’HORA, D. (2001). 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.
BARNES-HOLMES, Y., ROCHE, B., HEALY, O., LYDDY, F., CULLINAN, V. A., & HAYES, S. C. (2001). Psychological development. 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.
BARNES-HOLMES, Y., BARNES-HOLMES, D., SMEETS, P. M., STRAND, P., & FRIMAN, P. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with More-than and Less-than as generalized operant behavior in young children. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 3, 531–558.
BENTALL, R. P., DICKENS, D. W., & FOX, S. Fì. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 187–214.
BUSH, K. M., SIDMAN, M., & DEROSE, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29–45.
DESOTO, C. B., LONDON, M., & HANDEL, S. (1965). Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 513–521.
DUBE, W. V., G, G., & SERNA, R. W. (1992). Auditory successive conditional discriminations and auditory stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 103–114.
DYMOND, S., & BARNES, D. (1995). A transfer of self-discrimination functions in accordance with the derived stimulus relations of Sameness, More than, and Less than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163–184.
DYMOND, S., & BARNES, D. (1996). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 46, 271–300.
EVANS, T., NEWSTEAD, S. E., & BYRNE, R. M. (1993). The psychology of deduction. Hillsdale, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
FIELDS, L., ADAMS, B. J., VERHAVE, T., & NEWMAN, S. (1990). The effects of nodality on the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 345–358.
FIELDS, L., & VERHAVE, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.
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, 235–270.
HAYES, S. C., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & ROCHE, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.
HAYES, S. C., & BROWNSTEIN, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a behavior analytic view of the purposes of science. Society for the Advancement of Behavior Analysis, 9, 175–190.
HOLTH, P., & ARNTZEN, E. (2000). Reaction times and the emergence of class consistent responding: A case for precurrent responding? The Psychological Record, 50, 305–337.
IMAM, A. A. (2001). Speed contingencies, number of stimulus presentations, and the nodality effect in equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 265–288.
JOHNSON-LAIRD, P. N. (1972). The three series problem. Cognition, 1, 57–82.
KENNEDY, C. H. (1991). Equivalence class formation influenced by the number of nodes separating stimuli. Behavioral Processes, 24, 219–245.
O’HORA, D., ROCHE, B., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & SMEETS, P. M. (2002). Response latencies to multiple derived stimulus relations: Testing two predictions of relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 52, 51–75.
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 Science.
ROCHE, B., & BARNES, D. (1996). Arbitrarily applicable relational responding and sexual categorization: A critical test of the derived difference relation. The Psychological Record, 46, 489–507.
ROCHE, B., & BARNES, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus functions in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301.
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.
SIDMAN, M. (1992). Equivalence: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15–27). Reno: Context Press.
SPENCER, T. J., & CHASE, P. N. (1996). Speed analysis of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.
STEELE, D., & HAYES, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.
Von FERSEN, L., WYNNE, C. D. L., DELIUS, J. D., & STADDON, J. E. R. (1991). Transitive inference in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 334–341.
WULFERT, E., & HAYES, S. C. (1988). The transfer of conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125–144.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Robert Whelan’s research was supported by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and the Social Sciences, through a Government of Ireland Scholarship. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reilly, T., Whelan, R. & Barnes-Holmes, D. The Effect of Training Structure on the Latency of Responses to a Five-Term Linear Chain. Psychol Rec 55, 233–249 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395508
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395508