This study extended previous research on equivalence classes that contain more than one function. Initially, separate equivalence classes were established (A1, B1, C1 and A3, B3, C3) using a one-to-many matching-to-sample procedure where A1 and A3 were the sample stimuli. These classes then were transformed into functional equivalence classes by training unique functions at A1 and A3; using modelling clay, a ball was made at A1 and an oblong was made at A3. These two classes then were joined together using another matching-to-sample procedure to establish the class X1-A1-A3. Tests were conducted to see what behaviours occurred in the presence of A1, X1, and A3. Of seven participants, three produced entirely new behaviours at X1, while the others produced the behaviours previously taught at A1 and A3. Results are discussed in the context of variables affecting the generation of novel behaviour.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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, 405–405.
Boelens, H. (2002). Studying stimulus equivalence: Defense of the two-choice procedure. The Psychological Record, 52, 305–314.
Bones, R., Keenan, M., Askin, D., Adams, L., Taylor, D., & Nicholas, O. (2001). The effects of response topography on functional equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 51, 89–110.
Branch, M. N. (1994). Stimulus generalization, stimulus equivalence, and response hierarchies. In S. C. Haye, J. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 51–70). Reno, NV: Context Press.
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, 28, 183–204.
Clow, J. K. (2000). The combination of response functions in merged equivalence classes: a behavioral paradigm for conceptual combination. (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University).
Constantine, B. (2012). Exploring stone sculpture: A behavioral analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 141–148.
Dougher, M. J., & Markham, M. R. (1994). Stimulus equivalence, functional equivalence, and the transfer of function. In S. C. Haye, J. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 71–90). Reno, NV: Context Press.
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, 331–351.
Duffy, C., Keenan, M., & Dillenburger, K. (2006). Diagnosing child sex abuse: A research challenge. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation & Therapy, 2, 151–173.
Eikeseth, S., Rosales-Ruiz, J., Duarte, A., & Baer, D. M. (1997). The quick development of equivalence classes in a paper-and-pencil format through written instructions. The Psychological Record, 47, 275–284.
Fields, L., & Watanabe-Rose, M. (2008). Nodal structure and the partitioning of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 359–381.
Fields, L., Landon‐Jimenez, D. V., Buffington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995). Maintained nodal‐distance effects in equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129–145.
Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Adams, B. J., & Verhave, T. (1991). Stimulus generalization and equivalence classes: A model for natural categories. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55(3), 305–312.
Goetz, E. M., & Baer, D. M. (1973). Social control of form diversity and the emergence of new forms in children's blockbuilding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 209–217.
Guinther, P. M., & Dougher, M. J. (2011). From behavioral research to clinical therapy. In G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 2: Translating principles into practice (pp. 3-32). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B., & 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(1), 119–137.
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1994). The Morningside model of generative instruction. In R. Gardner, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. W. Eshleman, & Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 173–197). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Johnson, C., Meleshkevich, O., & Dube, W. V. (2014). Merging separately established stimulus classes with outcome-specific reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101(1), 38–50.
Keenan, M., & Kerr, K. (2002). Human time-based schedule performance: Exploring interactions between instructions and response-reinforcer contiguity. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3, 342–361.
Keenan, M., McGlinchey, A., Fairhurst, C., & Dillenburger, K. (2000). Accuracy of disclosure and contextual control in child abuse: Developing procedures within the stimulus equivalence paradigm. Behavior & Social Issues, 10, 1–17.
Kerr, K., & Keenan, M. (1997). Rules and rule-governance: New directions in the theoretical and experimental analysis of human behaviour. In K. Dillenburger, M. O'Reilly, & M. Keenan (Eds.), Advances in Behaviour Analysis (pp. 205–226). Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
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(3), 505–518.
Leslie, J., Tierney, K., Robinson, C., Keenan, M., Watt, A., & Barnes, D. (1993). Differences between clinically anxious and non-anxious subjects in a stimulus equivalence training task involving threat words. The Psychological Record, 43, 153–161.
Lubinski, D., & Thompson, T. (1986). Functional units of human behavior and their integration: A dispositional analysis. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 275–314). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mackay, H. A., Wilkinson, K. M., Farrell, C., & Serna, R. W. (2011). Evaluating merger and intersection of equivalence classes with one member in common. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 87–105.
Markman, A. B., Yamauchi, T., & Makin, V. (1997). The creation of new concepts: A multifaceted approach to category learning. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery, and change (pp. 179–208). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McGlinchey, A., Keenan, M., & Dillenburger, K. (2000). Outline for the development of a screening procedure for children who have been sexually abused. Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 722–747.
McGuigan, S., & Keenan, M. (2002). Rule following in functional equivalence classes. European Journal of Behaviour Analysis, 3, 21–30.
McVeigh, B., & Keenan, M. (2009). Multiple Functions in Equivalence Classes. Psychological Record, 59, 93–118.
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.
Moxon, P. D., Keenan, M., & Hine, L. (1993). Gender-role stereotyping and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 381–394.
Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238.
Saunders, R. R., Drake, K., & Spradlin, J. (1999). Equivalence class establishment, expansion, and modification in preschool children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 195–214.
Shahan, T. A., & Chase, P. N. (2002). Novelty, stimulus control, and operant variability. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 175–190.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.
Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and human behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
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.
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.
Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory. New York: John Wiley.
Stemmer, N. (1990). Skinner's Verbal behavior, Chomsky's review, and mentalism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 307–315.
Terrace, H. S. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without “errors” 1. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 1–27.
Tonneau, F. (2002). Who can understand relational frame theory? A reply to Barnes-Holmes and Hayes. European Journal of Behaviour Analysis, 3, 95–102.
Wasserman, E. A., & DeVolder, U. C. L. (1993). Similarity- and non-similarity- based conceptualization in children and pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 779–793.
Watt, A., Keenan, M., Barnes, D., & Cairns, E. (1991). Social categorization and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological record, 41, 33–50.
Wilkinson, K. M., & McIlvane, W. J. (2001). Methods for studying symbolic behavior and category formation: Contributions of stimulus equivalence research. Developmental Review, 21, 355–374.
Winston, A. S., & Baker, J. E. (1985). Behavior analytic studies of creativity: A critical review. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 191–205.
Wirth, O., & Chase, P. N. (2002). Stability of functional equivalence and stimulus equivalence: Effects of baseline reversals. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 29–47.
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.
This study was completed as part of an undergraduate research dissertation. We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments in preparing this manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Keenan, M., Porter, I. & Gallagher, S. Merging Separately Established Functional Equivalence Classes. Psychol Rec 65, 435–450 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0118-3
- Stimulus equivalence
- Transfer of function
- Class merger
- Novel behaviour