Stimulus equivalence: Testing Sidman's (2000) theory

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 371-391

  Minster, Sara Tepaeru ^a   Jones, Max ^a   Elliffe, Douglas ^a   Muthukumaraswamy, Suresh D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Equivalence relations; Humans; Matching to sample; Mouse click; Outcome specific consequences; Stimulus control

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REINFORCEMENT; VISION;

ADULT; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33744815373     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2006.15-05     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1996). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivalence are fundamentally different: A reply to Saunders' commentary. The Psychological Record, 46, 489-507.
2. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2000). Explain-ing complex behavior: Two perspectives on the concept of generalized operant classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 251-265.
3. Burgos, J. E. (2003). Laudable goals, interesting experiments, unintelligible theorizing: A critical review of Steven C. Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, and Bryan Roche's (Eds.) Relational frame Theory (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2001). Behavior and Philosophy, 31, 19-45.
4. Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & DeRose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29-45.
5. Carrigan, P. F., & Sidman, M. (1992). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 183-204.
6. Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1965). The complex discriminated operant: Studies of matching-to-sample and related problems. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Stimulus generalization (pp. 284-330). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7. Donahoe, J. W. (1994). What do reinforcers strengthen? The unit of selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 138-139.
8. Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1987). Stimulus class membership established via stimulus-reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 159-175.
9. Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Maguire, R. W., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Stimulus class formation and stimulus-reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 65-76.
10. 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.
11. Goyos, C. (2000). Equivalence class formation via common reinforcers among preschool children. The Psychological Record, 50, 629-654.
12. Harrison, R. J., & Green, G. (1990). Development of conditional and equivalence relations without differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 225-237.
13. 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.
14. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
15. Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21-49). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
16. Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 207-227.
17. Leader, G., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1996). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 46, 685-706.
18. Leader, G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure III. The Psychological Record, 50, 63-78.
19. Maki, P., Overmier, J. B., Delos, S., & Guttman, A. J. (1995). Expectancies as factors influencing conditional discrimination performance of children. The Psychological Record, 45, 45-71.
20. Markham, M. R., & Dougher, M. J. (1993). Compound stimuli in emergent stimulus relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 529-542.
21. Meehan, E. F., & Fields, L. (1995). Contextual control of new equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 45, 165-182.
22. Miller, O. T., Waugh, K. M., & Chambers, K. (2002). Differential outcomes effect: Increased accuracy in adults learning kanji with stimulus specific rewards. The Psychological Record, 52, 315-324.
23. Moxley, R. A. (1996). The import of Skinner's three-term contingency. Behavior and Philosophy, 24, 145-167.
24. Palmer, D. C. (2004a). Data in search of a principle: A review of S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, and B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 189-204.
25. Palmer, D. C. (2004b). Generic response classes and relational frame theory: Response to Hayes and Barnes-Holmes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 225-234.
26. Schenk, J. J. (1993). Emergent conditional discrimination in children: Matching to compound stimuli. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 345-365.
27. Schenk, J. J. (1994). Emergent relations of equivalence generated by outcome-specific consequences in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 44, 537-558.
28. Schenk, J. J. (1995). Complex stimuli in nonreinforced simple discrimination tasks: Emergent simple and conditional discriminations. The Psychological Record, 45, 477-494.
29. 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.
30. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
31. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127-146.
32. 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.
33. Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21-42.
34. Smeets, P. M., Leader, G., & Barnes, D. (1997). Establishing stimulus classes in adults and children using a respondent-type training procedure: A follow-up study. The Psychological Record, 47, 285-308.
35. Smeets, P. M., & Striefel, S. (1994). Matching to complex stimuli under non-reinforced conditions: Errorless transfer from identity to arbitrary matching tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 39-62.
36. Stromer, R., McIlvane, W. J., & Serna, R. W. (1993). Complex stimulus control and equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 585-598.
37. Tonneau, F. (2001). Equivalence relations: A critical analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 1-33.
38. Tonneau, F., & González, C. (2004). Function transfer in human operant experiments: The role of stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 239-255.
39. Trapold, M. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events discriminably different? Learning & Motivation, 1, 129-140.
40. Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., & Dougher, M. J. (1994). Third-order equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 44, 411-439.