The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 49–60 | Cite as

Emergence of Simpler Untested Derived Stimulus Relations in Extinction: Implications for Understanding Derived Relational Learning

  • Adam H. Doughty
  • Samantha E. Brenner
  • Madison L. Fox
  • Sterling M. Rippy
Original Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Derived stimulus relation Emergent learning Extinction Stimulus equivalence Human Mouse click 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this research.

References

  1. Arntzen, E. (2012). Training and testing parameters in formation of stimulus equivalence: Methodological issues. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of class size vs. number of classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Hayes, S. C. (2003). A reply to Galizio's “the abstracted operant: A review of relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition”. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 305–310.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Doughty, A. H., Kastner, R. M., & Bismark, B. D. (2011). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations: Replication and extensions. Behavioural Processes, 86, 152–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.08.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Doughty, A. H., & Oken, G. (2008). Extinction-induced response resurgence: A selective review. The Behavior Analyst Today, 9, 27–33.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dube, W. V. (1991). Computer software for stimulus control research with Macintosh computers. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior, 9, 28–30.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein, R. (1983). Resurgence of previously reinforced behavior during extinction. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 3, 391–397.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, R. (1985). Extinction-induced resurgence: Preliminary investigations and possible applications. The Psychological Record, 35, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fields, L., Adams, B., 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.53-345.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fields, L., & Moss, P. (2007). Stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: Interaction of nodality and contingency. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galizio, M. (2003). The abstracted operant: A review of relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 159–169.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Galizio, M. (2004). Relational frames: Where do they come from? A comment on Barnes-Holmes and Hayes (2003). The Behavior Analyst, 27, 107–112.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haimson, B., Wilkinson, K. M., Rosenquist, C., Ouimet, C., & McIlvane, W. J. (2009). Electrophysiological correlates of stimulus equivalence processes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 245–256.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2009.92-245.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 235–244.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, S. C., & Sanford, B. T. (2014). Cooperation came first: Evolution and human cognition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 112–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (1990). Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jensen, R. (2006). Behaviorism, latent learning, and cognitive maps: Needed revisions in introductory psychology textbooks. The Behavior Analyst, 29, 187–209.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lattal, K. A., & St. Peter Pipkin, C. (2009). Resurgence of previously reinforced responding: Research and application. The Behavior Analyst Today, 10, 254–266.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (1990). Do stimulus classes exist before they are tested? The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 13–17.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1995.63-225.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Rippy, S.M., & Doughty, A.H. (2017). Adduction of untested derived stimulus relations depends on environmental complexity. Behavioural Processes, 143, 1–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Wilson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1985.43-21.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1996.65-643.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tabullo, A., Yorio, A., Zanutto, S., & Wainselboim, A. (2015). An ERP comparison of derived relations in stimulus equivalence classes. Psychology & Neuroscience, 8, 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Wang, T., Dack, C., McHugh, L., & Whelan, R. (2011). Preserved nodal number effects under equal reinforcement. Learning & Behavior, 39, 224–238.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-011-0020-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, T., & Dymond, S. (2013). Event-related potential correlates of emergent inference in human arbitrary relational learning. Behavioural Brain Research, 236, 332–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.08.033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1998). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267–281.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1996.66-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.50-125.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam H. Doughty
    • 1
  • Samantha E. Brenner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Madison L. Fox
    • 1
  • Sterling M. Rippy
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCollege of CharlestonCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.University of North Carolina-WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations