Emergence of Simpler Untested Derived Stimulus Relations in Extinction: Implications for Understanding Derived Relational Learning
- 67 Downloads
The purpose of the present research was to clarify further the necessary and sufficient conditions that establish derived stimulus relations. Under more complex conditions (i.e., training involving four, four-member stimulus classes), past research has demonstrated that untested stimulus relations did not emerge when recently trained relational responding was extinguished. The present research examined whether such emergence was more likely under less complex conditions. In experiment 1, untested equivalence relations emerged in extinction using a training structure with three, three-member classes. In experiment 2, untested symmetrical relations emerged in extinction using a training structure with four, four-member classes. The necessary and sufficient conditions that establish derived stimulus classes seem to depend on environmental complexity. Presented are the implications of these findings for conceptualizing derived relational responding as a generalized, or higher-order, response class.
KeywordsDerived stimulus relation Emergent learning Extinction Stimulus equivalence Human Mouse click
This study was not externally funded.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this research were in accordance with the ethical standards of our institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this research.
- Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 187–214.Google Scholar
- Doughty, A. H., Brierley, K. P., Eways, K. R., & Kastner, R. M. (2014b). Effects of stimulus discriminability on discrimination acquisition and stimulus-equivalence formation: Assessing the utility of a multiple schedule. The Psychological Record, 64, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0001-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Doughty, A. H., Leake, L. W., & Stoudemire, M. L. (2014a). Failure to observe untested derived stimulus relations in extinction: Implications for understanding stimulus-equivalence formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dube, W. V. (1991). Computer software for stimulus control research with Macintosh computers. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior, 9, 28–30.Google Scholar
- Epstein, R. (1983). Resurgence of previously reinforced behavior during extinction. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 3, 391–397.Google Scholar
- Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations, or a correlation of classes? In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 173–195). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(06)80109-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (2000). Stimulus equivalence and units of analysis. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 111–126). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
- Tolman, E. C., & Honzik, C. H. (1930). Introduction and removal of reward, and maze performance in rats. University of California Publications in Psychology, 4, 257–275.Google Scholar
- Yorio, A., Tabullo, Á., Wainselboim, A., Barttfeld, P., & Segura, E. (2008). Event-related potential correlates of perceptual and functional categories: Comparison between stimuli matching by identity and equivalence. Neuroscience Letters, 443, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2008.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar