Contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence explains apparent arbitrary applicable relational responding in accordance with sameness and opposition

Contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence explains apparent arbitrary applicable... We evaluated whether contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence (i.e., selecting comparisons equivalent to the samples in the presence of a contextual cue, and excluding the selection of comparisons equivalent to the samples in the presence of another contextual cue) can account for apparent arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARR) in accordance with the frames of sameness and opposition, as defined in relational frame theory (RFT). Three college students were trained to maintain previously established conditional discriminations in the presence of a contextual cue X1, and to reverse them in the presence of another contextual cue X2 (e.g., X1–A1B1, X1–A2B2, X2–A1B2, X2–A2B1). Subsequent tests demonstrated that X1 and X2 functioned as cues for equivalence and nonequivalence. Later on, X1 and X2 were demonstrated to be functionally equivalent to supposed contextual cues for the frames of sameness and opposition employed in RFT studies (i.e., SAME and OPPOSITE cues), in tests for arbitrary and nonarbitrary derived stimulus relations. The functional equivalence of X2 and OPPOSITE suggests that OPPOSITE worked as a cue for nonequivalence. Thus, the results in RFT studies with SAME and OPPOSITE can be explained just by contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence. Therefore, the explanation that they actually demonstrated AARR in accordance with the frames of sameness and opposition can be questioned and replaced by a more parsimonious explanation, based on a few simple learning principles. We discuss the implications of this conclusion for the debate among competing theories about the origin of stimulus equivalence and other derived stimulus–stimulus relations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Learning & Behavior Springer Journals

Contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence explains apparent arbitrary applicable relational responding in accordance with sameness and opposition

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/contextual-control-over-equivalence-and-nonequivalence-explains-MtKwTSCZtp
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Psychonomic Society, Inc.
Subject
Psychology; Psychology, general; Neurosciences
ISSN
1543-4494
eISSN
1543-4508
D.O.I.
10.3758/s13420-017-0258-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We evaluated whether contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence (i.e., selecting comparisons equivalent to the samples in the presence of a contextual cue, and excluding the selection of comparisons equivalent to the samples in the presence of another contextual cue) can account for apparent arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARR) in accordance with the frames of sameness and opposition, as defined in relational frame theory (RFT). Three college students were trained to maintain previously established conditional discriminations in the presence of a contextual cue X1, and to reverse them in the presence of another contextual cue X2 (e.g., X1–A1B1, X1–A2B2, X2–A1B2, X2–A2B1). Subsequent tests demonstrated that X1 and X2 functioned as cues for equivalence and nonequivalence. Later on, X1 and X2 were demonstrated to be functionally equivalent to supposed contextual cues for the frames of sameness and opposition employed in RFT studies (i.e., SAME and OPPOSITE cues), in tests for arbitrary and nonarbitrary derived stimulus relations. The functional equivalence of X2 and OPPOSITE suggests that OPPOSITE worked as a cue for nonequivalence. Thus, the results in RFT studies with SAME and OPPOSITE can be explained just by contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence. Therefore, the explanation that they actually demonstrated AARR in accordance with the frames of sameness and opposition can be questioned and replaced by a more parsimonious explanation, based on a few simple learning principles. We discuss the implications of this conclusion for the debate among competing theories about the origin of stimulus equivalence and other derived stimulus–stimulus relations.

Journal

Learning & BehaviorSpringer Journals

Published: Mar 8, 2017

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off