Abstract
We investigated the transfer of conditioned avoidance functions through equivalence relations, and the extinction of these functions, facilitated by verbal prompts. Nine participants acquired three 4-member stimulus equivalence classes using a matching-to-sample procedure. One class stimulus was paired, by classical conditioning, with an aversive tone, which was used in avoidance training of a distinct response. There were two groups: A established the equivalence classes before avoidance training and vice versa for B. During some avoidance trials, each stimulus presentation was followed by the request for a verbal estimation of the probability of the tone. The last trials, run in extinction, included a verbal prompt to corroborate the provided estimation. One participant in each group received no verbal prompts. To negate the necessary reliance on instructions-governed performance, an additional participant completed the experiment with minimal instructions. All participants who had the equivalence training prior to the conditioning showed within-class transfer of avoidance functions, in contrast to the others. All prompted participants who demonstrated transfer showed gradual response extinction, but with a differential gradient. Responding decreased more sharply to the indirectly related stimuli than to the directly paired stimuli. The clinical implications are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The differences in the superscript notation between B as the stimulus acquiring the new stimulus properties directly, and D and A indirectly, is to illustrate the premise that despite the topographical similarities in the elicited responses, the “shared” stimulus properties will vary across some parameters. They are not considered identical; just as the properties of a conditioned stimulus (and response) are not identical to those of an unconditional stimulus (or reflex).
By this, we do not mean that responses per se are derived. It is the avoidance discriminative stimulus property that is being derived. But for convenience, here we refer to the responses as a way of talking about them differentially. It is from observing these, after all, that we infer the derivation of such functional properties.
In the conceptual elaborations –and methodological notes– surrounding reflexivity (e.g., Sidman and Tailby 1982 p. 6; Sidman 1994 p. 130, pp. 168-169, p. 319-320) there is no allusion to the available comparison stimuli as a relevant feature (the definitive feature being that the stimulus “exhibits the same conditional relational with respect to itself”, as long as it participated in the baseline conditional discriminations). Whilst it could be argued that utilizing novel stimuli as comparisons for reflexivity blocks can lead to selection by exclusion, such exclusion can also be made on the basis of the different histories of discriminative reinforcement for the stimuli used in the other relational blocks (besides, it is unknown whether the baseline “discriminate-able” contingencies could conflict with identity matching). Given some of these inconsistencies and multiple explanations around reflexivity (cf. Fields et al. 1993; Hayes 1991; Steele and Hayes 1991), we decided to explore such variables by modifying this methodological aspect. The respective data are not included in this paper.
References
Ader, R., & Tatum, R. (1961). Free-operant avoidance conditioning in human subjects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 275–276.
Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437–462.
Augustson, E. A., & Dougher, M. J. (1997). The transfer of avoidance evoking functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 28, 181–191.
Augustson, E. A., Dougher, M. J., & Markham, M. R. (2000). Emergence of conditional stimulus relations and transfer of respondent eliciting functions among compound stimuli. The Psychological Record, 50, 745–770.
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. NY: Guilford.
Barlow, D. H., Allen, L. B., & Choate, M. L. (2004). Toward a unified treatment for emotional disorders. Behavior Therapy, 35, 205–230.
Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1997). Relational frame theory and the experimental analysis of human sexuality. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 6, 117–136.
Barnes, D., Holmes, Y., Smeets, P. M., & Luciano, C. (2004). A derived transfer of mood functions through equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 54, 95–113.
Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.
Carrigan, P. F., Jr., & 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.
DeGrandpre, R. J., & Bickel, W. K. (1993). Stimulus control and drug dependence. The Psychological Record, 43, 651–666.
DeLuca, R. V., & Holborn, S. W. (1985). Effects of a fixed-interval schedule of token reinforcement on exercise with obese and non-obese boys. Psychological Record, 35, 525–533.
DeLuca, R. V., & Holborn, S. W. (1992). Effects of variable-ratio reinforcement schedule with changing criteria on exercise in obese and non-obese boys. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 25, 671–679.
Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E. M., Markham, M. R., 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.
Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: The transformation of stimulus functions. The behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254.
Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2009). A contemporary behavior analysis of anxienty and avoidance. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 7–27.
Fields, L., & Moss, P. (2008). Formation of partially and fully elaborated generalized equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 135–168.
Fields, L., Verhave, T., & Fath, S. (1984). Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 143–157.
Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1993). Are stimuli in equivalence classes equally related to each other? The Psychological Record, 43, 85–106.
Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53–70.
Glat, R., Gould, K., Stoddard, L. T., & Sidman, M. (1994). A note on transfer of stimulus control in the delayed-cue procedure: Facilitation by an overt differential response. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 699–704.
Goldiamond, I. (1962). Perception. In A. J. Bachrach (Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 280-340).
Harzem, P., Lowe, C. F., & Bagshaw, M. (1978). Verbal control in human operant behavior. Psychological Record, 28, 405–423.
Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19–41). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Hayes, S. C., & Strosalhl, K. D. (2004). A practical guide to acceptance and commitment therapy. NY: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986a). Instructions, Multiple Schedules, and Extinction: Distinguishing Rule-Governed from Scheduled-Controled Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–147.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986b). Rule-governed and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256.
Hayes, S. C., Strosalhl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. An experiential Approach to Behavior Change. NY: The Guilford Press.
Joyce, J. H., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 251–262.
Kudadjie-Gyamfi, E., & Rachlin, H. (2002). Rule-governed versus contingency-governed behavior in a self-control task: effects of changes in contingencies. Behavioural Processes, 57, 29–35.
Martinez, H., & Tamayo, R. (2005). Interactions of contingencies, instructional accuracy, and instructional history in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 55, 633–646.
Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1977). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 453–467.
O’Hora, D., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001a). The referencial nature of rules and instructions: A response to instructions, rules, and abstraction: A misconstrued relation by Emilio Ribes-Iñesta. Behavior and Philosophy, 29, 21–25.
O’Hora, D., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001b). Stepping up to the challenge of complex human behavior: A response to Emilio Ribes-Iñesta’s response. Behavior and Philosophy, 29, 59–60.
Ribes, E. (1999). Teoría del condicionamiento y lenguaje: Un análisis histórico y conceptual. Madrid-México: Taurus.
Ribes-Iñesta, E. (2000). Instructions, rules and abstraction: A misconstrued relation. Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 41–55.
Ribes-Iñesta, E. (2001a). About persistent conceptual confusion: A response to O’Hora and Barnes-Holmes. Behavior and Philosophy, 29, 27–29.
Ribes-Iñesta, E. (2001b). Stepping down to the foundations is needed to remedy conceptual confusion: A final reply to O’Hora and Barnes-Holmes. Behavior and Philosophy, 29, 61–62.
Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301.
Roche, B., Kanter, J. W., Brown, K. R., Dymond, S., & Fogarty, C. C. (2008). A comparison of “direct” versus “derived” extinction of avoidance. The Psychological Record, 58, 443–464.
Rosen, J. B., & Schulkin, J. (1998). From normal fear to pathological anxiety. Psychological Review, 105, 325–250.
Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Responsivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207–220.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.
Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behaviour Analysis, 22, 11–18.
Sidman, M. (1992a). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15–27). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Sidman, M. (1992b). Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 173–182.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence Relations and Behavior: A research history. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative, Inc., Publishers.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.
Sidman, M. (2009). Equivalence relations and behavior: An introductory tutorial. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 5–17.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. O. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching-to-sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.
Sidman, M., Rauzing, R., Lazar, R., Cunningham, S., Tailby, W. O., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A research for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44.
Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42.
Sidman, M., Wynne, C. K., Maguire, R. W., & Barnes, T. (1989). Functional classes and equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 261–274.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. NY: Appleton Century Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. NY: The free press. (Original work published 1953 by The Macmillan Company).
Skinner, B. F. (1991). The behaviour of organisms. Acton, Massachusetts: Copley Publishing Group. (Original work published 1938).
Steele, D., & Hayes, C. S. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.
Weiner, H. (1970). Human behavioral persistence. Psychological Record, 20, 445–456.
Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267–281.
Woods, D. W., & Kanter, J. W. (2007). Understanding behavior disorders: A contemporary behavioral perspective. Reno, NV: Context Press.
Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., Farkas, P., Hayes, S. C., & Dougher, M. J. (1994). Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 659–671.
Author Note
Part of this research fulfilled a requirement for the first author’s MSc in Psychology at the University of East London. The computer software was developed by Tony Leadbetter, senior technical officer at the University. Correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed to Santiago Garcia Guerrero: santiago.garciadefilippis@gmail.com
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A
Appendix A
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garcia-Guerrero, S., Dickins, T.E. & Dickins, D.W. The Gradual Extinction of Transferred Avoidance Stimulus Functions. Psychol Rec 64, 581–599 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0062-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0062-7