Contextual control of equivalence-based transformation of functions

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 78, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 63-93

  Dougher, Michael J ^a   Perkins, David R ^b   Greenway, David ^b   Koons, Ashton ^b   Chiasson, Carmenne ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Contextual control; Stimulus equivalence; Transfer of function; Transformation of function

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APPETITE; ARTICLE; COLOR VISION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MOTIVATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; APPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; COLOR PERCEPTION; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION, STIMULUS; HUMANS; MALE; MOTIVATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SERIAL LEARNING; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 0036653261     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2002.78-63     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91-124.
2. Barnes, D., Brown, M., Smeets, P. M., & Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three to six year old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405-430.
3. Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory are fundamentally different: A reply to Saunders' commentary. The Psychological Record, 46, 489-507.
4. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2000). Explaining complex behavior: Two perspectives on the concept of generalized operant classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 251-266.
5. Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29-45.
6. Clayton, M. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1999). Conceptual differences in the analysis of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 49, 145-161.
7. Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1965). The complex discriminated operant: Studies on matching-to-sample and related problems. In D. J. Mostofsky (Ed.), Stimulus generalization (pp. 284-330). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8. de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1-20.
9. Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E. M., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331-351.
10. Dougher, M. J., & Hackbert, L. (1994). A behavior analytic account of depression and a case report using acceptance-based procedures. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 321-334.
11. Dougher, M. J., & Markham, M. R. (1996). Stimulus classes and the untrained acquisition of stimulus function. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 71-90). Amsterdam: North Holland.
12. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163-184.
13. Ellis, H. C. (1965). The transfer of learning. New York: Macmillan.
14. Forsyth, J. P. (2000). A process-oriented behavioral approach to the etiology, maintenance, and treatment of anxiety-related disorders. In M. J. Dougher (Ed.), Clinical behavior analysis (pp. 153-180). Reno, NV: Context Press.
15. Gatch, M. B., & Osborne, J. G. (1989). Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 369-378.
16. Goldiamond, I. (1962). Perception. In A. J. Bachrach (Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 280-340). New York: Wiley.
17. Goldiamond, I. (1966). Perception, language, and conceptualization rules. In G. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving (pp. 183-224). New York: Wiley.
18. Green, G., Sigurdardottir, Z. G., & Saunders, R. R. (1991). The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinal functions through equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 287-304.
19. Greenway, D. E., Dougher, M. J., & Wulfert, E. (1996). The transfer of conditioned reinforcement and punishment functions through stimulus equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 46, 131-144.
20. Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19-40). Reno, NV: Context Press.
21. Hayes, S. C. (1994). Relational frame theory: A functional approach to verbal behavior. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 11-30). Reno, NV: Context Press.
22. Hayes, S. C., & Barnes, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235-244.
23. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum.
24. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Wilson, K. G. (1996). Stimulus classes and stimulus relations: Arbitrarily applicable relational responding as an operant. In T. Zentall & P. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 279-299). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
25. Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1383-1395.
26. Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. K., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119-137.
27. Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1993). Some applied implications of a contemporary behavior analytic account of verbal behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 283-301.
28. Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1996). Criticisms of relational frame theory: Implications for a behavior analytic account of derived stimulus relations. The Psychological Record, 46, 221-236.
29. Kennedy, C. H., & Laitinen, R. (1988). Second-order conditional control of symmetric and transitive stimulus relations: The influence of order effects. The Psychological Record, 38, 437-446.
30. Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes through equivalence classes: A possible model of social stereotyping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 505-518.
31. Lashley, K. S. (1938). Conditional reactions in the rat. Journal of Psychology, 6, 311-324.
32. Lawrence, D. H. (1963). The nature of a stimulus: Some relationships between learning and perception. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 5, pp. 179-212). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. Lazar, R. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381-392.
34. Lazar, R. M., & Kotlarchyk, B. J. (1986). Second-order control of sequence-class equivalences in children. Behavioural Processes, 13, 205-215.
35. Lynch, D. C., & Green, G. (1991). Development and crossmodal transfer of contextual control of emergent stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 139-154.
36. Meehan, E. F., & Fields, L. (1995). Contextual control of new equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 45, 165-182.
37. Osgood, C. E. (1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275-301.
39. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control over the derived transformation of discriminative and sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50, 267-291.
40. Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1992). The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 227-241.
41. Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Sidman, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Sidman, M. (1992). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Haves & L. J. Haves (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15-27). Reno, NV: Context Press.
44. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
45. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127-146.
46. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22.
47. Sidman, M., Wynne, C. K., Maguire, R. W., & Barnes, T. (1989). Functional classes and equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 261-274.
48. Spradlin, J. E., & Saunders, R. R. (1986). The development of stimulus classes using match-to-sample procedures: Sample classification vs. comparison classification. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 41-58.
49. Steele, D., & Haves, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519-555.
50. Stromer, R., Mcllvane, W. J., & Serna, R. W. (1993). Complex stimulus control and equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 585-598.
51. Wilson, K. G., & Blackledge, J. T. (2000). Recent developments in the behavioral analysis of language: Making sense of clinical phenomena. In M. J. Dougher (Ed.), Clinical behavior analysis (pp. 27-46). Reno, NV: Context Press.
52. Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Why it is crucial to understand thinking and feeling: An analysis and application to drug abuse. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 25-44.
53. Wulfen, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125-144.