Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding.

Subjects' responses to nonarbitrary stimulus relations of sameness, oppositeness, or difference were brought under contextual control. In the presence of the SAME context, selecting the same comparison as the sample was reinforced. In the presence of the OPPOSITE context, selecting a comparison as far from the sample as possible on the physical dimension defined by the set of comparisons was reinforced. Given the DIFFERENT context, selecting any comparison other than the sample was reinforced. Subjects were then exposed to arbitrary matching-to-sample training in the presence of these same contextual cues. Some subjects received training using the SAME and OPPOSITE contexts, others received SAME and DIFFERENT, and others received SAME, OPPOSITE, and DIFFERENT. The stimulus networks established allowed testing for a wide variety of derived relations. In two experiments it was shown that derived performances were consistent with relational responding brought to bear by the contextual cues. In contexts relevant to the relation of sameness, stimulus equivalence emerged. Other kinds of relational networks emerged in the other contexts. Arbitrarily applicable relational responding may give rise to a very wide variety of derived stimulus relations. The kinds of performances seen in stimulus equivalence do not appear to be unique.     

Whatever Gave You That Idea? False Memories Following Equivalence Training: A Behavioral Account of the Misinformation Effect

The misinformation effect is a term used in the cognitive psychological literature to describe both experimental and real-world instances in which misleading information is incorporated into an account of an historical event. In many real-world situations, it is not possible to identify a distinct source of misinformation, and it appears that the witness may have inferred a false memory by integrating information from a variety of sources. In a stimulus equivalence task, a small number of trained relations between some members of a class of arbitrary stimuli result in a large number of untrained, or emergent relations, between all members of the class. Misleading information was introduced into a simple memory task between a learning phase and a recognition test by means of a match-to-sample stimulus equivalence task that included both stimuli from the original learning task and novel stimuli. At the recognition test, participants given equivalence training were more likely to misidentify patterns than those who were not given such training. The misinformation effect was distinct from the effects of prior stimulus exposure, or partial stimulus control. In summary, stimulus equivalence processes may underlie some real-world manifestations of the misinformation effect.     

Protocol analysis of the correspondence of verbal behavior and equivalence class formation.

In two equivalence experiments, a "think aloud" procedure modeled after Ericsson and Simon's (1980) protocol analysis was implemented to examine subjects' covert verbal responses during matching to sample. The purpose was to identify variables that might explain individual differences in equivalence class formation. The results from Experiment 1 suggested that subjects who formed equivalence classes described the relations among stimuli, whereas those not showing equivalence described sample and comparison stimuli as unitary compounds. Because Experiment 1 only demonstrated a correlation between describing stimulus compounds and the absence of equivalence classes, a second study was conducted. In Experiment 2, equivalence class formation was brought under experimental control through pretraining manipulations that facilitated responding either to stimulus compounds or to relations among stimuli. The results demonstrated that a history of describing stimulus compounds, when compared with describing the relations among the stimuli, interfered with the emergence of stimulus equivalence. These findings clarify individual differences in stimulus equivalence. They also demonstrate the utility of analyzing verbal reports to identify possible variables that can be manipulated experimentally.     

USING STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROCEDURES TO TEACH NAME-FACE MATCHING TO ADULTS WITH BRAIN INJURIES

On pretests, 3 men with brain injuries matched dictated names of three therapists to written names, but did not match dictated or written names to photos, produce correct names in response to photos, locate offices given written names, or name therapists on sight. Match-to-sample training established conditional relations between dictated names and photos. Posttests showed the emergence of untrained conditional relations involving photos and written names, indicating development of three classes of equivalent stimuli (each containing a dictated name, photo, and written name). For 1 participant, conditional relations involving photos of office nameplates were also examined, but did not emerge pre- or posttraining. Two participants produced names orally when given photos and sorted written names and faces together after training; the 3rd participant was unavailable for these posttests. After training, 1 participant located and named all three therapists in their offices.     

The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations

The purpose of this study was to examine the transfer of consequential (reinforcement and punishment) functions through equivalence relations. In Experiment 1, 9 subjects acquired three three-member equivalence classes through matching-to-sample training using arbitrary visual forms. Comparison stimuli were then given conditioned reinforcement or punishment functions by pairing them with verbal feedback during a sorting task. For 8 of the 9 subjects, trained consequential functions transferred through their respective equivalence classes without additional training. In Experiment 2, transfer of function was initially tested before equivalence testing per se. Three of 4 subjects showed the transfer without a formal equivalence test. In Experiment 3, 3 subjects were given training that gave rise to six new three-member conditional equivalence classes. For 2 of the subjects, the same stimulus could have either a reinforcement or punishment function on the basis of contextual cues that defined its class membership. Experiment 4 assessed whether equivalence training had established general or specific consequential functions primarily by adding novel stimuli in the transfer test. Subjects treated even novel feedback stimuli in the transfer test as consequences, but the direction of consequential effects depended upon the transfer of specific consequential functions through equivalence relations.