Skip to main content
Log in

Relations between Verbal Self-Stimulation, Stimulus Modality, and Accuracy in an Operant Task

  • Published:
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From an operant perspective, verbal behavior is multiply controlled by different sources of stimulation, including self-stimulation. Self-stimulation (i.e., responding with respect to one’s own response products) is thought to be especially important for verbal mediation that temporally extends discriminative stimulus control. While previous research has examined the effects of self-stimulation across multiple dimensions of verbal responding, stimulus control of patterns of self-stimulation in conjunction with other patterns of discriminative stimuli of different modalities have arguably received less attention. The purpose of this study was to examine relations between patterns of self-stimulation and different types of verbal discriminative stimulation (i.e., visual and auditory) through differences in their contribution to verbal response accuracy in a recall task. Using a novel online task, participants completed a series of trials in which they (1) typed a 7-digit sequence of digits presented to them either visually or auditorily in which response products were (a) unmasked (typing different keys produced different characters) or (b) masked (typing different keys produced the same character) in the initial response phase, (2) engaged in an intervening activity in the distractor phase, and (3) retyped the same sequence of digits during the recall phase that was initially presented during the initial response phase. While no significant differences in accuracy of digits submitted during recall phases were observed with respect to visual and auditory verbal discriminative stimuli, the average total number of correct digits typed during recall phases was found to be higher when response products were unmasked in the initial response phase than when they were masked.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In relational frame theory (Hayes et al., 2001), this is not specific enough. What is verbal is what participates in a relational network, not what is socially mediated by a listener (Skinner, 1957/2014).

  2. Although some might disagree (Stewart et al., 2013; Sundberg et al., 2018), even relating is often described as operant activity that mediates subsequent activity by transforming the functional properties of stimuli in accordance with a historically established relational network. Hayes et al. (2001) contend that, “relating one event to another and combining relations among events are flexible behaviors under specific environmental control” (p. 42). Barnes-Holmes et al. (2020) adhere to a similar conceptualization by stating that relating can increase the probability of subsequent orienting and evoking. Likewise, self-generating rules can be considered reinforced relational activity that serves to maximize reinforcement by altering the probability of other operant activity (Bern et al., 2020).

  3. It should be noted that terms other than “control” are often used in contemporary molar (and interbehavioral) frameworks. In molar frameworks, patterns of behavioral and environmental events are often viewed as interdependent; neither pattern controls the other, at least not without adherence to both controlling one another because both patterns are dependent on one another (c.f., Baum, 2020). In interbehavioral frameworks, bidirectional, functional relations obviate discussing behavior in terms of control and comparable constructs (c.f., Kantor, 1977).

  4. The term “subtle” is used in this paper to denote difficulty discerning some forms of activity of a whole organism without delimiting it as private or covert activity of part of a whole organism. Parrott (1984) uses this term for a similar reason, and Hayes and Fryling (2009) discuss this issue at length.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based on and extends thesis research conducted in partial fulfillment of the first author’s master’s degree requirements. The authors would like to thank Bethany Contreras, MaryAnne Demchak, Michael Gomez, Caitlin Vaca, and Melanie Stites for their help on this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamiika Thomas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

Approval was obtained from the institutional review board of the authors’ affiliated institution.

Informed Consent

In accordance with institutional review board approval, informed consent was given by all participants prior to participation in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(XLSX 248 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Individual Summary Values for Participants in the Visual Group
Table 3 Individual Summary Values for Participants in the Auditory Group
Table 4 2 x 2 Mixed Design ANOVAs
Table 5 2 x 2 Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVAs
Table 6 Number of Correct Digits Typed during the Recall Phase of Each Trial for All Participants in the Visual Group
Table 7 Number of Correct Digits Typed during the Recall Phase of Each Trial for All Participants in the Auditory Group
Table 8 Pearson Correlations

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomas, J., Fleming, W. & Hayes, L.J. Relations between Verbal Self-Stimulation, Stimulus Modality, and Accuracy in an Operant Task. Analysis Verbal Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-024-00201-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-024-00201-x

Keywords

Navigation