Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: Control by negative stimuli

Three adult subjects were taught the following two-sample, two-comparison conditional discriminations (each sample is shown with its positive and negative comparison, in that order): A1-B1B2, A2-B2B1; B1-C1C2, B2-C2C1; and C1-D1D2, C2-D2D1. A teaching procedure was designed to encourage control by negative comparisons. Subjects were then tested for emergent performances that would indicate whether the baseline conditional discriminations were reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. The tests documented the emergence of two classes of equivalent stimuli: A1, B2, C1, D2 and A2, B1, C2, D1. These were the classes to be expected if the negative comparisons were the controlling comparisons in the baseline conditional discriminations. The negative comparisons, however, were not the comparisons that subjects were recorded as having chosen in the baseline conditional discriminations. Differential test results confirmed predictions arising from a stimulus-control analysis: In reflexivity tests (AA, BB, CC, DD), subjects chose comparisons that differed from the sample; one-node transitivity (AC, BD) and "equivalence" (CA, DB) tests also yielded results that were the opposite of those to be expected from control by positive comparisons; symmetry tests (BA, CB, DC), two-node transitivity (AD) tests, and two-node "equivalence" (DA) tests yielded results that were to be expected from control by either positive or negative comparisons.     

Compound stimuli in emergent stimulus relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence

Three experiments were conducted to investigate stimulus relations that might emerge when college students are taught relations between compound sample stimuli and unitary comparison stimuli using match-to-sample procedures. In Experiment 1, subjects were taught nine AB-C stimulus relations, then tested for the emergence of 18 AC-B and BC-A relations. All subjects showed the emergence of all tested relations. Twelve subjects participated in Experiment 2. Six subjects were taught nine AB-C relations and were then tested for symmetrical (C-AB) relations. Six subjects were taught nine AB-C and three C-D relations and were then tested for nine AB-D (transitive) relations. Five of 6 subjects demonstrated the emergence of symmetrical relations, and 6 subjects showed the emergence of transitivity. In Experiment 3, 5 college students were taught nine AB-C and three C-D relations and were then tested for nine equivalence (D-AB) relations and 18 AD-B and BD-A relations. Three subjects demonstrated all tested relations. One subject demonstrated the AD-B and BD-A relations but not the D-AB relations. One subject did not respond systematically during testing. The results of these experiments extend stimulus equivalence research to more complex cases.     

Relations between baseline contingencies and equivalence probe performances

Following the emergence of two three-member equivalence classes (A1B1C1 and A2B2C2), 5 college students were exposed to one or more changes in the reinforcement contingencies controlling baseline conditional discriminations. AC relations were either reversed (i.e., C2 was reinforced and C1 punished when A1 was the sample; C1 was reinforced and C2 punished when A2 was the sample) or arranged randomly (i.e., C2 and C1 were reinforced and punished equally often in the presence of A1 and A2). In a third condition, the original AB and AC relations were reversed. Results showed that although baseline conditional discrimination performances were under the control of reinforcement contingencies, and performances on symmetry trials varied with baseline responding for 3 of 4 subjects when contingencies were reversed, performances on transitivity probes remained consistent with the initial equivalence class. These inconsistencies between probe and baseline performances were striking because conditional discriminations are thought to be the determinants of equivalence class performance. Similarly, the contrast between performances on symmetry and transitivity probes was of theoretical interest because equivalence classes are defined by congruent patterns of responding on probe trials.     

Development and crossmodal transfer of contextual control of emergent stimulus relations

Six normally capable adults first learned three conditional relations in each of two prospective equivalence classes via match-to-sample training with figures as conditional (sample) and discriminative (comparison) stimuli. Then one trained conditional relation in each prospective class was brought under the control of contextual stimuli, two dictated nonsense syllables. Test performances indicated the emergence of untrained conditional relations, and therefore two equivalence classes, that were conditional on the contextual stimuli. These tests involved untrained combinations of contextual stimuli and stimuli in conditional relations, suggesting that the contextual stimuli functioned independently to control conditional relations rather than forming compound stimuli with samples and comparisons in training. Next, two novel figures were made equivalent to each of the original dictated contextual stimuli by match-to-sample training and testing. On subsequent tests, all subjects demonstrated transfer of conditional control of untrained conditional relations from the original auditory contextual stimuli to equivalent visual stimuli. These outcomes further supported the conclusion that the contextual stimuli exerted true conditional control over conditional relations in the equivalence classes and were not merely elements of compound stimuli.     

Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes

Eight adult humans were taught conditional discriminations in a matching-to-sample format that led to the formation of two four-member equivalence classes. When subjects were taught to select one comparison stimulus from each class in a set order, they then ordered all other members of the equivalence classes without explicit training. When the ordering response itself was brought under conditional control, conditional sequencing also transferred to all other members of the two equivalence classes. When the conditional discriminations in the matching-to-sample task were brought under higher order conditional control, the eight stimulus members were arranged into four conditional equivalence classes. Both ordering and conditional ordering transferred to all members of the four conditional equivalence classes; for some subjects this occurred without a typical test for equivalence. One hundred twenty untrained sequences emerged from eight trained sequences for all subjects. Transfer of functions through equivalence classes may contribute to a behavior-analytic approach to semantics and generative grammar.     

Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development

In a conditional discrimination, 6 college students arranged six Cyrillic letters into groups of three based upon which of two additional Cyrillic letters (contextual stimuli) was present. All subjects demonstrated symmetry and transitivity within each class of equivalent stimuli. In a second conditional discrimination, two more Cyrillic letters were related to each contextual stimulus. Testing of symmetrical and transitive relations between the original contextual stimulus and the two new ones confirmed the development of two three-member classes of contextual stimuli. Subsequent tests demonstrated that the new contextual stimuli controlled the previously trained sample-comparison relations for all subjects.     

Resurgence of derived stimulus relations.

Resurgence has been shown in human and nonhuman operant behavior, but not in derived relational responses. The present study examined this issue. Twenty-three undergraduates were trained to make conditional discriminations in a three-choice matching-to-sample paradigm. The training resulted in three equivalence classes, each consisting of four arbitrarily configured visual stimuli. The same 12 stimuli were then reorganized, and the conditional discrimination training was repeated such that three new classes were possible. In a subsequent test of derived relations, most subjects showed response patterns that were consistent with the altered conditional discriminations. Subjects were then exposed to conditional discrimination trials under extinction. Most subjects continued to respond consistently with the most recently reinforced conditional discrimination trials. During the next phase, subjects were exposed to symmetry and equivalence trials. Responses consistent with the most recent training produced feedback saying that the responses were incorrect, whereas other responses produced no feedback. Most subjects showed a resurgence of responding that was consistent with their earlier training. Finally, subjects were exposed to conditional discrimination trials carried out in extinction. Most subjects continued to show a resurgence of responding that was consistent with their early training.     

CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION VS. MATCHING TO SAMPLE: AN EXPANSION OF THE TESTING PARADIGM

A subject's performance under a conditional-discrimination procedure defines conditional relations between stimuli: “If A1, then B1; if A2, then B2.” The procedure may also generate matching to sample. If so, the stimuli will be related not only by conditionality, but by equivalence: A1 and B1 will become equivalent members of one stimulus class, A2 and B2 of another. One paradigm for testing whether a conditional-discrimination procedure has generated equivalence relations uses three sets of stimuli, A, B, and C, three stimuli per set. Subjects learn to select Set-B and Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-A samples. Having been explicitly taught six sample-comparison relations, A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, and A3C3, subjects prove immediately capable of matching the B- and C-stimuli; six new relations emerge (B1C1, B2C2, B3C3, C1B1, C2B2, C3B3). The 12 stimulus relations, six taught and six emergent, define the existence of three three-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. This paradigm was expanded by introducing three more stimuli (Set D), and teaching eight children not only the AB and AC relations but DC relations also—selecting Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples. Six of the children proved immediately capable of matching the B- and D-stimuli to each other. By selecting appropriate Set-B comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples, and Set-D comparisons conditionally upon Set-B samples, they demonstrated the existence of three four-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1D1, A2B2C2D2, and A3B3C3D3. These larger classes were confirmed by the subjects' success with the prerequisite lower-level conditional relations; they were also able to select Set-D comparisons conditionally upon samples from Sets A and C, and to do the BC and CB matching that defined the original three-member classes. Adding the three DC relations therefore generated 12 more, three each in BD, DB, AD, and CD. Enlarging each class by one member brought about a disproportionate increase in the number of emergent relations. Ancillary oral naming tests suggested that the subject's application of the same name to each stimulus was neither necessary nor sufficient to establish classes of equivalent stimuli.     

Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence.

The functional substitutability of stimuli in equivalence classes was examined through analyses of the speed of college students'' accurate responding. After training subjects to respond to 18 conditional relations, subjects'' accuracy and speed of accurate responding were compared across trial types (baseline, symmetry, transitivity, and combined transitivity and symmetry) and nodal distance (one- through five-node transitive and combined transitive and symmetric relations). Differences in accuracy across nodal distance and trial type were significant only on the first tests of equivalence, whereas differences in speed were significant even after extended testing. Response speed was inversely related to the number of nodes on which the tested relations were based. Significant differences in response speed were also found across trial types, except between transitivity and combined trials. To determine the generality of these comparisons, three groups of subjects were included: An instructed group was given an instruction that specified the interchangeability of stimuli related through training; a queried group was queried about the basis for test-trial responding: and a standard group was neither instructed nor queried. There were no significant differences among groups. These results suggest the use of response speed and response accuracy to measure the strength of matching relations.     

Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli

A detailed analysis is presented of the ways in which control by the negative stimulus in two-comparison conditional discriminations may be expected to affect the outcome of tests for the properties of equivalence relations. Control by the negative stimulus should produce the following results: (a) no observable effect on symmetry tests; (b) reflexivity test results should look like “oddity” rather than “identity”; and (c) transitivity tests that involve an odd number of nodes should yield results that are 100% opposite to tests that involve an even number of nodes. The analysis also considers the effects of variation in the type of comparison-stimulus control between and within baseline conditional discriminations. Methods are suggested for experimentally regulating the type of control, and for verifying the predictions that the analysis generates. If suggested experiments continue to support the analysis, investigators who use two-comparison conditional discriminations to study equivalence relations will either have to control explicitly whether the positive or the negative comparison governs their subjects' choices, or they will have to abandon two comparisons and use three or more comparisons instead.     

Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations.

In a conditional discrimination procedure, samples appeared in a center key, and comparisons appeared in two of four outer keys. The location of comparison keys varied from trial to trial. Separate learning curves for each of the six possible pairs of comparison keys were plotted in a signal-detection space, revealing different patterns of progress on each pair. Also, when learned conditional discriminations were disrupted, pairs of keys differed in their patterns of disruption. Varying the location of comparison stimuli among six different pairs of keys had not eliminated key position as a controlling aspect of the stimuli. The variations simply increased the number of stimulus compounds--key position and experimental stimuli--that the subject learned. Plotting conditional-discrimination learning curves in a signal-detection space reveals relations among hits, false alarms, accuracy, and comparison preference that help to define a subject's progress.     

A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children.

Procedures for generating arbitrary matching-to-sample performances may generate only conditional discriminations. Rational grounds for this distinction are proposed, based on the properties that any equivalence relation must possess. Empirical tests are described for determining whether subjects trained on conditional discriminations are also engaged in true matching to sample. A series of studies than leads to the conclusion that proof of true matching to sample by monkeys, pigeons, or baboons is yet to be provided. Whether the absence of such proof reflects experiential factors or species-defined limitations is not presently clear.     

Functional classes and equivalence relations

Three adult subjects were taught a set of two-choice simultaneous discriminations, with three positive and three negative stimuli; all possible combinations of positive and negative stimuli yielded nine different pairs. The discriminations were repeatedly reversed and rereversed, the former positive stimuli becoming negative and the former negative stimuli becoming positive. With all subjects, a reversal of the contingencies for one pair of stimuli became sufficient to change their responses to all of the other pairs. The reversals had produced functional stimulus classes. Then, all subjects showed conditional discriminations emerging between members of a functional class; given a sample from one class and comparisons from both classes, they selected the comparison that was in the same class as the sample. Next, 2 of the subjects showed that the within-class conditional relations possessed the symmetric and transitive properties of equivalence relations; after having been taught to relate new stimuli to existing class members, the subjects then matched other class members to the new stimuli. Subsequent tests of two-choice discriminations showed that the conditional discriminations had transferred functional class membership to the new stimuli. The 3rd subject, who did not show equivalence relations among functional class members, was also found to have lost the within-class conditional relations after the equivalence tests.     

The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli

Three experiments assessed the likelihood that subjects with histories of equivalence class development would respond conditionally on new discriminations in the absence of differential consequences for responses. In the first two experiments, two groups of subjects with different experimental histories, but whose performances showed four equivalence classes, responded on trials without explicit reinforcement involving samples from two of the classes and comparisons from the other two classes, in a two-choice matching-to-sample format. Subjects consistently selected a particular comparison in the presence of a particular sample. Subsequent tests showed the emergence of equivalence relations between stimuli from classes linked by the unreinforced conditional selections. Subsequently, in Experiment II, the subjects' responses in the conditional selection trials were reinforced if the selection was reversed from that made previously. Although reversed selection was maintained, 2 of the 3 subjects continued to perform on equivalence relation trials according to their original unreinforced selections. In the third experiment, these 2 subjects responded on a series of conditional discriminations involving three new pairs of sample stimuli and one new pair of comparison stimuli. No explicit reinforcement followed responses on any trial in this experiment. Subsequent tests for equivalence between sample stimuli revealed the development of two equivalence classes.     

Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures

Two eight-member equivalence classes of visual stimuli were established during three phases of a training program. In Phase 1, two training arrangements were compared. In one, 3 subjects were taught on different trials to select from a single pair of comparison stimuli (A1, A2) in response to eight sample stimuli that were trained in pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2; E1, E2). In the second arrangement, subjects were taught to select from four pairs of comparisons (B1, B2; C1, C2; D3, D2; E2, E2) in response to two samples (A1, A2). Training with the single pair of comparison stimuli resulted in the development of equivalence relations (B1C1, B2C2, D1B1, D2B2, B1E1, B2E2, C1D1, C2D2, C1E1, C2E2, D1E1, D2E2, and their reciprocals) between the sample stimuli without direct training of these relations. In the other training arrangement, these relations among the comparison stimuli developed in the performance of 1 subject only. In Phase 2, three new pairs of stimuli (F1, F2; G1, G2; H1, H2) were substituted for three of the original pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2) and the training arrangements for the groups were reversed. Following training, the performances that showed equivalence relations on the probes in the first phase also showed equivalence relations in the second phase. If such relations did not develop in the first phase, they did not do so in the second phase. In Phase 3, relations between stimuli across the two previous phases (e.g., B1F1, B2F2, B1G1, B2H2, C1F1, etc.) were investigated. The 4 subjects whose performances showed the development of these relations were taught to select one stimulus from each class (E1 and E2) in response to a verbal label (I1 and I2) and then were tested to see if the verbal label controlled responding to the remaining members of the class (e.g., I1A1, I2A2, I1B1, I2B2, etc.). For 3 subjects, this generalized control occurred; for the 4th, generalization occurred only after verbal training with a second pair of visual stimuli (F1 and F2). In retests several months later, these auditory-visual relations were found to be intact or, if not, were recovered without direct training.     

Conditional relations by monkeys: Reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity

Two cynomolgous macaques categorized six colors into two groups of three after conditional discrimination training (zero-delay symbolic match-to-sample). The procedures resulted in the establishment of relations among the elements of each set-relations that were not specifically trained and that can be characterized by the properties of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. Each set of colors was related to a characteristic pattern of responding: One response pattern involved temporal duration (press and hold the response keys); the second response pattern entailed repeated pressing and releasing of the response keys (fixed ratio 8). Six combinations of two colors were trained, three combinations from each set. After discriminative performance stabilized for each monkey, they were tested with 10 additional color combinations, all of which differed from the training combinations. The conditional relations established between test combinations can be characterized as stimulus equivalence. The training procedures were analogous to the procedure of using category names, and have implications for understanding the function of language in the formation of equivalence classes.     

The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes through equivalence classes: a possible model of social stereotyping.

In Experiment 1, subjects acquired conditional equivalence classes controlled by three male and three female names as contextual stimuli. When equivalence relations were tested using new names not used in training (three male and three female), contextual control remained intact. Thus, generalized control of the composition of conditional equivalence classes by characteristically gender-identified names was shown. A basic analysis of this finding was tested in Experiment 2. Contextual equivalence classes were established using as contextual stimuli nonrepresentational visual figures that were members of additional pretrained three-member equivalence classes. When other stimuli in the pretrained equivalence classes were used as contextual stimuli, the conditional equivalence classes remained intact. Control subjects showed that this effect depended on the equivalence relations established in pretraining. The results show that contextual control over equivalence classes can transfer through equivalence classes. The implications of this phenomenon for social stereotyping are discussed.     

The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence.

Sidman and his colleagues derived behavioral tests for stimulus equivalence from the axiom in logic and mathematics that defines a relation of equivalence. The analogy has generated abundant research in which match-to-sample methods have been used almost exclusively to study interesting and complex stimulus control phenomena. It has also stimulated considerable discussion regarding interpretation of the analogy and speculation as to its validity and generality. This article reexamines the Sidman stimulus equivalence analogy in the context of a broader consideration of the mathematical axiom than was included in the original presentation of the analogy and some of the data that have accumulated in the interim. We propose that (a) mathematical and behavioral examples of equivalence relations differ substantially, (b) terminology is being used in ways that can lead to erroneous conclusions about the nature of the stimulus control that develops in stimulus equivalence experiments, and (c) complete analyses of equivalence and other types of stimulus-stimulus relations require more than a simple invocation of the analogy. Implications of our analysis for resolving current issues and prompting new research are discussed.