The Operant-Respondent Distinction Revisited: Toward An Understanding Of Stimulus Equivalence

Rehfeldt, Ruth Anne; Hayes, Linda J.

doi:10.1007/bf03395266

Cited by 39 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The DMTS procedure used in Phase 1 ensured that during testing sample stimulus offset (i.e., AV2) was immediately followed by onset of the comparisons (i.e., AV3 and N3; see Fig.1). The fact that the sample and predicted comparison(s) never appeared simultaneously on-screen makes it highly unlikely that avoidance emerged through sensory pre-conditioning, second-order conditioning or stimulus compounding processes because the stimuli that occasioned avoidance, AV2 and AV3, were never directly paired (Hall, 1996;Rehfeldt & Hayes, 1998;Smeets & Barnes-Holmes, 2003). The low number of exposures required to pass the stimulus equivalence test (M: 3) further indicates it was unlikely that unspecified forms of adventitious feedback could have influenced responding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Dymond

Schlund

Roche

et al. 2011

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSymbolic generalization of avoidance may underlie the aetiology and maintenance of anxiety disorders. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate inferred threat-avoidance and safety (non-avoidance) behaviours that occur in the presence of stimuli indirectly related to learned threat and safety cues. A laboratory experiment was conducted involving two symbolic stimulus equivalence relations consisting of three physically dissimilar stimuli (avoidance cues: AV1eAV2eAV3 and neutral cues: N1eN2eN3). During avoidance learning involving aversive images and sounds, a key-press avoidance response was trained for one member of one of the relations (AV2) and non-avoidance for another (N2). Inferred threat and safety behaviour and ratings of the likelihood of aversive events were tested with presentations of all remaining stimuli. Findings showed a significantly high percentage of avoidance to both the learned and inferred threat cues and less avoidance to both the learned and inferred safety cues. Ratings in the absence of avoidance were high during training and testing to threat cues and low to safety cues and were generally lower in the presence of avoidance. Implications for associative and behavioural accounts of avoidance, and modern therapies for anxiety disorders are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Dymond

Schlund

Roche

et al. 2011

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Equivalence-class researchers, for example, have documented numerous cases of transfer of function among stimuli in matching to sample (e.g., Gatch & Osborne, 1989;. I will argue later that the transfers of function observed in these experiments have nothing to do with matching to sample, but arise from stimulus pairings or correlation, as in Pavlovian conditioning (Boelens, 1990;Rehfeldt & L. J. Hayes, 1998;Tonneau, 1993). For the moment, however, I just want to emphasize that such phenomena have been amply documented.…”

Section: Functional Equivalencementioning

confidence: 91%

“…None of these studies, even those dealing with respondent behavior (Dougher, Augustson, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994), has controlled for the possibility that the observed transfer arose from mere stimulus pairings instead of matching to sample. Yet in matchingto-sample experiments, the subjects who match samples and comparisons consistently (say, A -> B) necessarily expose themselves to differential stimulus pairings (AB); and we know that stimulus pairings, direct or indirect, produce function transfer (e.g., Arcediano, Matute, & Miller, 1997; see Boelens, 1990;Rehfeldt & L. J. Hayes, 1998;Tonneau, 1993).…”

Section: Back To the Real Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equivalence Relations: A Critical Analysis

Tonneau

2001

European Journal of Behavior Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…25-26; 2002, p. 97) and that reinforcement in the typical matching-to-sample task could favor the transfer among certain stimuli in detriment of others (2001b, p. 121, footnote 10). Similarly, Rehfeldt and Hayes (1998) have suggested that reinforcement programmed in matching-to-sample tasks could merely act on the subjects' attending responses to the correct comparison stimulus, favoring its pairing with the sample stimulus.…”

Section: Concluding Commentsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Equivalence Class Formation is Influenced by Stimulus Contingency

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three groups of subjects received training in stimulus equivalence classes with a respondent-type training procedure. Stimulus contingency was positive for the first group, zero for the second, and negative for the third. Afterwards, all participants were tested with a matching-to-sample task for four baseline relations (A1-B1, A2-B2, C1-B1, and C2-B2), four symmetry relations (B1-A1, B2-A2, B1-C1, and C2-B2), and four combined symmetry and transitivity relations (A1-C1, A2-C2, C1-A1, and C2-A2). After this, they were retrained and retested twice. Explicit reinforcement was not programmed during the training or testing phases. The number of subjects who learned the baseline relations and showed the emergence of derived relations was higher in the positive contingency group than in the zero or negative contingency groups, although in all cases at least one retraining phase was required in order to reach the criteria. This finding contributes to the literature suggesting that stimulus pairing is the fundamental variable underlying emergent stimulus functions.

show abstract

The Operant-Respondent Distinction Revisited: Toward An Understanding Of Stimulus Equivalence

Cited by 39 publications

References 71 publications

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Inferred threat and safety: Symbolic generalization of human avoidance learning

Equivalence Relations: A Critical Analysis

Equivalence Class Formation is Influenced by Stimulus Contingency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About