In Experiment 1, 2 experimental subjects were given pretraining of nonarbitrary relations that brought their responses under the control of four contextual stimuli; same, opposite, more than, and less than. One control subject was not exposed to this pretraining. The 2 pretrained subjects and the 3rd nonpretrained subject then received training in six arbitrary relations, the following four relations being the most critical: same/A1-B1, same/A1-C1, less than/A1-B2, more than/A1-C2. All 3 subjects were then tested for seven derived relations, the following three relations being the most important: same/B1-C1, more than/B1-C2, less than/B1-B2. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the derived relations. One of the stimuli (B1) from the relational network and two novel stimuli (X1 and X2) were then used to train three different self-discrimination responses on three complex schedules of reinforcement. That is, all 3 subjects were trained to pick X1 if they had not emitted a response, to pick B1 if they had emitted one response only, and to pick X2 if they had emitted two responses only. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the predicted transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the relations of sameness, more than, and less than (i.e., no response, pick B2; one response only, pick C1; and two responses only, pick C2). In Experiment 2, 2 new subjects were employed, and the arbitrary relational training and testing phases were modified to control for a procedural artifact that may have contributed to the results of the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. The pattern of results support the utility of a relational frames approach to understanding derived stimulus relations.

Adult male subjects saw a sexual film clip paired with a nonsense syllable (C1). Similarly, an emotionally neutral film clip was paired with a second nonsense syllable (C3). Responses to the nonsense syllables were recorded as skin resistance responses. Subjects were also trained in a series of related conditional discriminations, using the C1 and C3 stimuli, from which the following equivalence relations were predicted; A1-B1-C1, A2-B2-C2, and A3-B3-C3. Some subjects were given matching-to-sample (equivalence) tests after the conditional discrimination training (Experiment 1), whereas others were not (Experiment 2). Subjects were tested for a transformation of eliciting functions by presenting the A1 and A3 stimuli, which were related through equivalence to C1 and C3, respectively. Five of the 6 subjects who showed significantly greater conditioned responses to C1 than to C3, also showed significantly greater skin resistance responses to A1 than to A3. Two additional subjects demonstrated a transformation of an eliciting stimulus function in accordance with five-member equivalence relations (Experiment 3), and another 5 subjects demonstrated similar effects in accordance with the relations of sameness and opposition (Experiment 4).

During Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were trained in a series of related conditional discriminations in a matching-to-sample format (A1-B1, A1-C1 and A2-B2, A2-C2). A low-rate performance was then explicitly trained in the presence of B1, and a high-rate performance was explicitly trained in the presence of B2. The two types of schedule performance transferred to the C stimuli for all subjects in both experiments, in the absence of explicit reinforcement through equivalence (i.e., C1 = low rate and C2 = high rate). In Experiment 2, it was also shown that these discriminative functions transferred from the C1-C2 stimuli to two novel stimuli that were physically similar to the C stimuli (SC1 and SC2, respectively). For both these experiments, subjects demonstrated the predicted equivalence responding during matching-to-sample equivalence tests. In Experiments 3 and 4, the conditional discrimination training from the first two experiments was modified in that two further conditional discrimination tasks were trained (C1-D1 and C2-D2). However, for these tasks the D stimuli served only as positive comparisons, and ND1 and ND2 stimuli served as negative comparisons (i.e., C1 x ND1 and C2 x ND2). Subsequent to training, the negatively related stimuli (ND1 and ND2) did not become discriminative for the schedule performances explicitly trained in the presence of B1 and B2, respectively. Instead, the ND1 stimulus became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B2, and ND2 became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B1. All subjects from Experiment 4 showed that the novel stimulus SND1, which was physically similar to ND1, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND1. Similarly, SND2, which was physically similar to ND2, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND2. Subjects from both Experiments 3 and 4 also produced equivalence responding on matching-to-sample equivalence tests that corresponded perfectly to the derived performances shown on the transfer of discriminative control tests.

No abstract

The present study tested the idea that human self-discrimination response functions may transfer through equivalence relations. Four subjects were trained in six symbolic matching-to-sample tasks (if see A1, choose B1; A1-C1, A2-B2, A2-C2, A3-B3, A3-C3) and were then tested for the formation of three equivalence relations (B1-C1, B2-C2, B3-C3). Two of the B stimuli (B1 and B2) were then used to train two different self-discrimination responses using either detailed instructions (Subjects 1 to 3) or minimal instructions (Subject 4) on two complex schedules of reinforcement (i.e., subjects were trained to pick the B1 stimulus if they had not emitted a response, and to pick the B2 stimulus if they had emitted one or more responses on the previous schedule). All 4 subjects showed the predicted transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations (i.e., no response on the schedule, pick C1; one or more responses on the schedule, pick C2). Subjects also demonstrated this transfer when they were required to discriminate their schedule performance before exposure to the schedule (i.e., "what I intend to do"). Four control subjects were also used in the study. Two of these (Subjects 5 and 6) were not exposed to any form of matching-to-sample training and testing (nonequivalence controls). The 2 remaining subjects (7 and 8) were exposed to matching-to-sample training and testing that incorporated stimuli not used during the transfer test; C1 and C2 were replaced by N1 and N2 during the matching-to-sample training and testing, but C1 and C2 were used for the transfer tests (equivalence controls). All 4 subjects failed to produce the self-discrimination transfer performances observed with the experimental subjects.