Stimulus Equivalence: Testing Sidman's (2000) Theory

Abstract

Sidman's (2000) theory regarding the origin of equivalence relations predicts that a reinforcing stimulus common to distinct equivalence classes must drop out of the equivalence relations. This prediction was tested in the present study by arranging class-specific reinforcers, R1 and R2, following correct responding on the prerequisite conditional discriminations (Ax-Bx, Cx-Bx) for two stimulus classes, A1B1C1 and A2B2C2. A class-common reinforcer, R3, was presented following correct responding on the prerequisite conditional discriminations for a further two stimulus classes, A3B3C3 and A4B4C4. Sidman's theory predicts reinforcer inclusion within Classes 1 and 2 only, given this training arrangement. Experiment 1 tested for the emergence of four equivalence classes and of stimulus-reinforcer and reinforcer-stimulus relations in each class. Four of the 6 subjects demonstrated the reinforcer-based relations in all four equivalence classes, rather than in only those classes with a classspecific reinforcer, as Sidman's theory predicts. One of the remaining 2 subjects showed the reinforcerbased relations in three of the four classes. Experiment 2 extended these findings to document the emergence of interclass matching relations based on the common reinforcer R3, in 5 of 6 subjects, such that a Class 3 sample occasioned the selection of a Class 4 sample when the Class 3 comparison was absent, and similarly, a Class 4 sample occasioned the selection of a Class 3 comparison when the Class 4 comparison was absent. These interclass relations emerged despite the simultaneous maintenance of Class 3 and 4 baseline conditional discriminations, so that the Class 3 and 4 stimuli and reinforcer simultaneously were, and were not, part of a single larger equivalence class. These data are irreconcilable with Sidman's theory, and question the utility of the application of the equivalence relation in describing derived stimulus relations.

Consequências Específicas Arbitrárias Em Matching De Identidade São Efetivas Para O Estabelecimento De Classes De Equivalência?

“…Porém, os resultados obtidos nas tentativas de sonda AB, BA, AC, CA, BC e CB mostraram que as classes de equivalência A1B1C1, A2B2C2 e A3B3C3 não foram estabelecidas a partir do treino em MTS de identidade com as consequências específicas empregadas no Experimento 1. Esses dados contradizem praticamente todos os resultados apresentados em estudos prévios nos quais relações condicionais arbitrárias emergiram a partir de um treino com características semelhantes (Dube & McIlvane, 1995;Dube et al, 1987;Dube et al, 1989;Goyos, 2000;Joseph et al, 1997;Johnson et al, 2014;Minster et al, 2006;Schenk, 1994;Varella & de Souza, 2014).…”

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

“…That is, they mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably by a mature English speaker and reader. Earlier, we discussed that, to date, several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the differential outcomes training procedure in facilitating the acquisition of equivalence stimulus relations across different individuals, ranging from individuals with mental retardation (e.g., Dube & McIlvane, 1995) to typical young adults (Minster et al, 2006;see Tables 1 and 2).…”

“…Positive results have been yielded in such diverse populations as youngsters with mental retardation (ages 13-21 years; Dube & McIlvane, 1995), adults with Prader-Willi syndrome (Joseph, Overmier, & Thompson, 1997), typical preschool children (Goyos, 2000;Schenk, 1994), and, more recently, typical young adults as well (Minster, Jones, Elliffe, & Muthukumaraswamy, 2006).…”

“…Their inclusion in the respective equivalence classes can, thus, only be based on their associations with the class-specific outcomes Ox during the identity-matching training (Goyos, 2000). In other words, stimulus-outcome relations seem sufficient to give rise to equivalence class formation (Minster et al, 2006). See Joseph et al (1997) in Table 1 for the results of a direct comparison between the effects of DO versus NDO training on the establishment of equivalent stimulus classes.…”

“…Immediate response outcomes alone, verbal or nonverbal, are also effective, for example, food (pieces of dried or fresh fruit) versus a verbal praise ("That is very good") in children (Maki et al, 1995); chocolates versus stickers in children (Martinez, Estevez, Fuentes, & Overmier, 2009); a drink (a sip of coffee) versus food (a cheese cracker) in youngsters with mental retardation (Dube & McIlvane, 1995); nickels versus points in elderly adults suffering from Korsakoff syndrome (Hochhalter et al, 2000); and colored pictures of movie tickets, cash, or chocolates in typically functioning adults (Minster et al, 2006).…”