The Transformation of Consequential Functions in Accordance With the Relational Frames of Same and Opposite

Abstract

Although the literature on reinforcement in behavioral psychology is extensive, few studies have examined the derived transformation of reinforcing functions in accordance with equivalence classes, and no published research has yet examined the derived transformation of consequential functions in accordance with nonequivalence relations. In the present study, which consisted of four experiments, the basic preparation was as follows. First, an arbitrary stimulus, B2, was established as a conditioned punisher, using direct stimulus pairing. Following nonarbitrary relational training, designed to establish SAME and OPPOSITE contextual cues, subjects were exposed to arbitrary relational training using these contextual cues to establish A1 as the same as B1 and C1, and as opposite to B2 and C2. Subsequently, C2 (based on its Same relation with B2) functioned as a punisher and C1 (based on its Opposite relation with B2) functioned as a reinforcer in a simultaneous discrimination task. Critically, the C1 stimulus acquired reinforcing functions, based on the derived relation of Opposite, although no such function had actually been established for any member of the network. Furthermore, these effects were observed across ABA reversals in the baseline contingencies.

Derived relations and generalized alteration of preferences

“…In the first part of the study, we employed a variation of the procedures employed by Whelan and Barnes-Holmes (2004b) to isolate the impact of relational training and testing on the transformation of the consequential function of events (in our study, C1 and C2). In the second part of the study, we established relations between the antecedent stimuli used in baseline, test I, and test II (i.e., geometrical shapes) and the letters X, Y, W, and Z.…”

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

“…it is important to note that the present study presented all possible probe trials (i.e., B-c and c-B) during the arbitrary relational test, whereas previous transformation of function studies (e.g., Dymond & Barnes, 1996;Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004) have presented the B-c probes only. responding in accordance with the predicted relational network required that subjects would (a) choose c1 given B1 in the presence of SamE; (b) choose B1 given c1 in the presence of SamE (c1 and B1 are both the same as A1 and therefore the same as each other); (c) choose c2 given B2 in the presence of SamE; (d) choose B2 given c2 in the presence of SamE (c2 and B2 are both opposite to A1 and therefore the same as each other); (e) choose c2 given B1 in the presence of OPPOSITE; (f) choose B1 given c2 in the presence of OPPOSITE (c2 is opposite to A1, and B1 is the same as A1, and therefore c2 is opposite of B1); (g) choose c1 given B2 in the presence of OPPOSITE; and choose B2 given c1 in the presence of OPPOSITE (c1 is the same as A1, and B2 is opposite to A1, and therefore c1 is opposite to B2).…”

“…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).…”

In search of meaning: Values in modern clinical behavior analysis

“…For example, the realization that ''I love my job'' may, at least temporarily, make job-relevant activity even more reinforcing than before. There is now established empirical support for both these forms of augmental rule following (Hayes, Kohlenberg, & Hayes, 1991;Ju & Hayes, 2008;Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). Leigland (2005) suggests that in the case of augmental rule following, ''reinforcement may be a derived function established through participation in a network of relations among arbitrary stimuli' ' (p. 137).…”