A Transformation of Respondently Conditioned Stimulus Function in Accordance With Arbitrarily Applicable Relations

Abstract

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).

Derived Avoidance Learning: Transformation of Avoidance Response Functions in Accordance with Same and Opposite Relational Frames

“…thus, there are likely many more ways for derived avoidance responses to emerge in the world outside the laboratory than those highlighted by Augustson and Dougher (1997). Several studies conducted under the rubric of relational frame theory have since provided evidence that it is possible for human participants to respond in accordance with relations other than equivalence, such as same and opposite (e.g., Dymond & Barnes, 1996;roche & Barnes, 1997;Steele & Hayes, 1991;Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004).…”

A Transformation of Functions in Accordance with the Nonarbitrary Relational Properties of Sexual Stimuli

“…Such a performance suggests that either the discriminative behavior established at the outset was extremely fluent and resistant to extinction or the discriminative stimuli or the operant response, or both, acquired sexual reinforcing properties. indeed, this latter possibility should not be surprising, given that it has been well established in previous research that arbitrary stimuli can acquire sexually arousing properties by virtue of their participation in derived relations with primary sexual reinforcers (Roche & Barnes, 1997;Roche et al, 2000). On the other hand, one of the participants was a self-declared heterosexual female and was unlikely to have been sexually aroused by the stimuli employed.…”

“…That is, if the C1 stimulus in the foregoing example is associated explicitly with a sexually arousing visual image, then A1 but not A2 will also acquire sexual arousal-eliciting functions (see Roche & Barnes, 1997).…”

“…For example, Roche and Barnes (1997) exposed participants to a relational pretraining procedure to establish contextual functions of Same and Opposite for two arbitrary stimuli. Specifically, across several training trials participants were presented with sample stimuli and three comparison stimuli that were related to each other along a physical dimension.…”

Acceptance in behavior therapy: Understanding the process of change

“…Further, stimuli such as spoken or written symbols can acquire the functions of other types of stimuli (e.g., Roche & Barnes, 1997). For example, words can function as discriminative stimuli, conditioned evocative stimuli, and consequences (e.g., Newman, Hemmes, Buffington, & Andreopoulos, 1994;Schlinger, 1993).…”