Contextual control of equivalence-based transformation of functions.

The transformation of functions refers to the untrained acquisition of stimulus functions among members of stimulus equivalence classes or relational frames. Although it is widely assumed that contextual control over the transformation of fuctions must exist, this has not yet been conclusively demonstrated in laboratory studies. Four experiments are reported in which (a) stimulus equivalence classes were established, (b) a conditional stimulus function was trained for one member of each of the classes, and (c) multiple-exemplar procedures were used to train and test for contextual control over the transformation of the stimulus function within the classes and to assess whether it generalized to new equivalence classes. Although a significant amount of training was required, the procedures ultimately resulted in the contextual control of function transformation for 9 of 10 participants and generalized contextual control for 4 of 5 participants.

[1]  David E. Greenway,et al.  The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. , 1994, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  R. Stromer,et al.  Complex Stimulus Control and Equivalence , 1993 .

[3]  S. Hayes,et al.  Some Applied Implications of a Contemporary Behavior-Analytic Account of Verbal Events , 1993, The Behavior analyst.

[4]  K. Lashley.  Conditional Reactions in the Rat , 1938 .

[5]  B. Roche,et al.  Relational frame theory : A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition , 2004 .

[6]  B. Roche,et al.  A Transfer of Functions and a Conditional Transfer of Functions Through Equivalence Relations in Three-To Six-Year-Old Children , 1995 .

[7]  S. Hayes,et al.  The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  Barbara S. Kohlenberg,et al.  The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes through equivalence classes: a possible model of social stereotyping. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  R R Saunders,et al.  The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence. , 1992, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  S. Hayes,et al.  Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  Linda J. Hayes,et al.  Conceptual Differences in the Analysis of Stimulus Equivalence , 1999 .

[12]  R. Lazar,et al.  Second-order control of sequence-class equivalences in children , 1986, Behavioural Processes.

[13]  D. Barnes,et al.  A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than. , 1995, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  D. Crowne,et al.  Experimental foundations of clinical psychology , 1964 .

[15]  M. Sidman,et al.  Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. , 2000, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  D. Lawrence.  The nature of a stimulus: Some relationships between learning and perception. , 1962 .

[17]  R. Lazar.  Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  B. Roche,et al.  Contextual Control over the Derived Transformation of Discriminative and Sexual Arousal Functions , 2000 .

[19]  M. Sidman,et al.  Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[20]  M. Dougher,et al.  A Behavior-Analytic Account of Depression and a Case Report Using Acceptance-Based Procedures , 2003, The Behavior analyst.

[21]  E. F. Meehan,et al.  Contextual Control Of New Equivalence Classes , 1995 .

[22]  C. Osgood.  Method and theory in experimental psychology , 1953 .

[23]  J. D. de Rose,et al.  Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  J. Spradlin,et al.  The development of stimulus classes using match-to-sample procedures: Sample classification versus comparison classification☆ , 1986 .

[25]  D. Barnes,et al.  Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. , 1997, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[26]  Bryan Roche,et al.  Relational Frame Theory and Stimulus Equivalence are Fundamentally Different: A Reply to Saunders’ Commentary , 1996 .

[27]  S. Hayes,et al.  Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[28]  D. Barnes,et al.  Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory , 1994 .

[29]  Transfer of Consequential Functions VIA Stimulus Equivalence: Generalization to Different Testing Contexts , 1996 .

[30]  S. Hayes,et al.  Criticisms of relational frame theory: Implications for a behavior analytic account of derived stimulus relations , 1996 .

[31]  S. Hayes,et al.  14 Stimulus classes and stimulus relations: Arbitrarily applicable relational responding as an operant , 1996 .

[32]  Henry C. Ellis,et al.  Transfer of Learning , 2021, Research in Mathematics Education.

[33]  R R Saunders,et al.  The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinal functions through equivalence classes. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[34]  M Sidman,et al.  Functional classes and equivalence relations. , 1989, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[35]  G. Green,et al.  Development and crossmodal transfer of contextual control of emergent stimulus relations. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[36]  S. Hayes,et al.  Why it is crucial to understand thinking and feeling: An analysis and application to drug abuse , 2000, The Behavior analyst.

[37]  B. Roche,et al.  A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. , 1997, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[38]  C. Kennedy,et al.  Second-Order Conditional Control of Symmetric and Transitive Stimulus Relations: The Influence of Order Effects , 1988 .

[39]  Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development. , 1989, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[40]  M Sidman,et al.  Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. , 1989, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[41]  Dermot Barnes-Holmes,et al.  Explaining Complex Behavior: Two Perspectives on the Concept Of Generalized Operant Classes , 2000 .

[42]  S. Hayes,et al.  Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. , 1992 .

[43]  M. Markham,et al.  8 Stimulus classes and the untrained acquisition of stimulus functions , 1996 .