JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR

2015, 9999, 1–13

NUMBER

9999 (OCTOBER)

THE TRANSFER OF CFUNC CONTEXTUAL CONTROL THROUGH EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS WILLIAM F. PEREZ, ADRIANA P. FIDALGO, ROBERTA KOVAC,

AND

YARA C. NICO

^ PARADIGMA - CENTRO DE CIENCIAS DO COMPORTAMENTO, BRAZIL

Derived relational responding is affected by contextual stimuli (Cfunc) that select specific stimulus functions. The present study investigated the transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations by evaluating both (a) the maintenance of Cfunc contextual control after the expansion of a relational network, and (b) the establishment of novel contextual stimuli by the transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations. Initially, equivalence relations were established and contingencies were arranged so that colors functioned as Cfunc stimuli controlling participants’ keypressing responses in the presence of any stimulus from a three-member equivalence network. To investigate the first research question, the three-member equivalence relations were expanded to five members and the novel members were presented with the Cfunc stimuli in the key-pressing task. To address the second goal of this study, the colors (Cfunc) were established as equivalent to certain line patterns. The transfer of contextual cue function (Cfunc) was tested replacing the colored backgrounds with line patterns in the key-pressing task. Results suggest that the Cfunc contextual control was transferred to novel stimuli that were added to the relational network. In addition, the line patterns indirectly acquired the contextual cue function (Cfunc) initially established for the colored backgrounds. The conceptual and applied implications of Cfunc contextual control are discussed. Key words: Relational Frame Theory (RFT), equivalence relations, contextual control, contextual cue, Cfunc, transfer of function, transformation of function, humans

Once human subjects learn to perform specific relational responses (e.g., A ¼ B, B ¼ C; or A < B, B < C), they usually are able to respond to novel relations that were not directly trained but are derived from those that were previously reinforced (e.g., B ¼ A, C ¼ B, A ¼ C, C ¼ A; or B > A, C > A, A < C, C > A). This phenomenon has been widely replicated in the literature on stimulus equivalence (Sidman, 1994) and derived relational responding (Hayes, Barnes-Homes, & Roche, 2001), even when relational networks (sets of stimulus relations) involve a large number of stimulus relations (e.g., Bortoloti & de Rose, 2009; Sidman, 1994) or when different kinds of relations (e.g., relational frames of opposition, comparison, etc.) are trained—as in the case of Relational Frame Theory (RFT) studies (e.g., Dougher, Hamilton, Fink, & Harrington, 2007; Whelan & Barnes-Holmes 2004; for review see Dymond, May, Munnelly, & Hoon, 2010).

Equivalence and RFT studies have also been concerned with how relational responding affects the acquisition of stimulus functions (e.g., discriminative, eliciting, reinforcing, etc.). These studies suggest that if a stimulus member of a relational network (e.g., A ¼ B ¼ C; or A < B < C) acquires a specific stimulus function (for example, supposing A is now a reinforcer), other stimuli that were arbitrarily related to it will indirectly acquire a novel (derived) function (for example, B and C would equally work as reinforcers; or C would be more reinforcing than B, and B more reinforcing than A). The indirect acquisition of stimulus functions occasioned by the participation of a given stimulus in a relational network has been referred to as transfer (or transformation) of function (Dougher, Augustson, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994; Dougher & Markham, 1996; Dymond & Barnes, 1995; Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000) and has been systematically demonstrated both with operant (e.g., de Rose, McIlvane, Dube, Galpin, & Stoddard, 1988; Dougher et al., 2007; Dougher, Perkins, Greenway, Koons, & Chiasson 2002; Hayes, Kohlenberg, & Hayes, 1991; Luciano et al., 2014; Perkins, Dougher, & Greenway, 2007; Whelan & Barnes-Holmes 2004;) and Pavlovian stimulus functions (e.g., Dougher et al., 1994, 2007; Luciano et al., 2014; Roche & Barnes, 1997).

The present research was supported by the Paradigma Research Fellowship on behalf of Adriana P. Fidalgo. We thank Dr. Gregory Madden and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to William F. Perez, Paradigma - Centro de Ci^encias do Comportamento, Rua Vanderley, 611, Perdizes, S~ao Paulo – SP, CEP 05011-001, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1002/jeab.150

1

2

WILLIAM F. PEREZ et al.

Barnes, Browne, Smeets and Roche (1995) investigated the transfer of discriminative functions for stimuli related through equivalence in six-year-old children. In the early phases of their experiment, two 3-member equivalence relations were established (A1B1C1 and A2B2C2). After participants were taught to clap their hands given B1 and to wave given B2, C1 and C2 stimuli were presented on no-feedback probe trials; the occurrence of waving and clapping was measured. Because the discriminative functions trained for B1 and B2 (B1 ! clap and B2 ! wave) also occurred given the presence of their equivalent stimuli, C1 and C2 (C1 ! clap and C2 ! wave), respectively, evidence was provided for transfer of function. Since no differential reinforcement procedure was programmed to directly establish such discriminative functions to C, it is said that C stimuli acquired a derived discriminative function through participation in a relational network of equivalence with B. Outside the lab, stimuli often have multiple functions and contextual stimuli may be necessary to determine the function appropriate to the situation (Hayes, Fox, Gifford, & Wilson, 2001; Hayes & Hayes, 1992; Sidman, 1986, 1992, 1994;). For example, at an optometrist’s office the auditory word “glasses” evokes several spectacle-related responses (e.g., putting them on, taking them off, evaluating their style), whereas, in a kitchen the same stimulus, “glasses” evokes cup-related responding (e.g., taking or giving a glass used for drinking). RFT denotes “Cfunc” the contextual stimuli that are established to select specific stimulus functions on a particular occasion (see Hayes, Fox et al., 2001, p. 33). In the Barnes et al. (1995) experiment discussed above, once the B1 ! clap and B2 ! wave functions had transferred to C1 and C2, respectively, colors provided contextual cues to responding. When a yellow contextual cue was present, the participants had to respond in accord with the B1 ! clap and B2 ! wave relations; when the cue was blue, the contingencies were reversed. Evidence for the transfer of function was provided when C1 and C2 evoked the same responses as B1 and B2, respectively, given the presence of the yellow and blue contextual stimuli. Although the authors did not discuss their data using the term Cfunc, from an RFT perspective, the colored cues exerted Cfunc contextual control over C stimuli derived functions.

Studies have suggested that contextual stimulus functions might also transfer through equivalence relations (e.g., Gatch & Osborne, 1989; Stewart, Barrett, McHugh, BarnesHolmes, & O’Hora, 2013; see also P erezGonz alez & Serna, 2003). Gatch and Osborne showed the transfer of contextual control concerning the organization of equivalence relations. They established equivalence classes that were rearranged depending on the presence of a contextual stimulus (X1 or X2). Given X1, responses in accordance with the equivalence classes A1B1C1 and A2B2C2 were reinforced; given X2, participants had to respond in accordance with the equivalence classes A1B2C2 and A2B1C1. After performance was maintained, the contextual stimuli that reorganized equivalence classes, X1 and X2, were established as equivalent to Y1 and Y2, and also to Z1 and Z2, respectively (X1Y1Z1 and X2Y2Z2). Next, the original contextual stimuli (X) were replaced by their equivalent (Y and Z). Results suggest that Y and Z stimuli acquired the derived contextual function of reorganizing equivalence classes in the same manner as X stimuli. Another study by Stewart, Barrett et al. (2013) showed the transfer of contextual cue function through equivalence relations in a task involving nonarbitrary relational responding. Initially, participants were taught nonarbitrary relations of sameness, difference and opposition in a MTS task with simple shapes. Next, sameness, difference and opposition relational responding were applied to one of three distinct physical dimensions of multidimensional stimuli. The relevant physical dimension in each trial was determined by additional B stimuli that contextually controlled responses based on the number of shapes (B1), the number of dots (B2) or the size of dots (B3). Thus, for example, when the contextual stimuli were SAME þ B1, the participant had to choose the comparison stimulus with the same number of shapes in relation to the sample, and so on. Equivalence relations were then established between B and C stimuli (C1, C1 and C3). In the last phases of their experiment, participants learned nonarbitrary comparative relations (more, less and same). C stimuli were then presented to evaluate whether, without explicit training, participants would compare the multidimensional forms based on the number of shapes (C1), the number of dots (C2) or the size of dots (C3). Results show that, for example,

THE TRANSFER OF CFUNC CONTEXTUAL CONTROL when the contextual stimuli MORE þ C2 were presented, the participants chose the comparison stimulus with the higher number of dots. These results suggest that the contextual control exerted by B stimuli in the first nonarbitrary relational task (same, different opposite) was transferred to C in the task with nonarbitrary comparative relations. Investigating the transfer of contextual control is key to understanding how stimulus functions can be appropriately modulated in novel contexts. This might be relevant for a behavior-analytic explanation of language (Stewart, McElwee, & Ming, 2013; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988), especially to account for the extension of specific meanings to novel words and contexts—as observed in the use of metaphors, for example (e.g., Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, & Lipkens, 2001). To extend findings on this issue, the present study aimed to investigate the transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations. This study addressed the research question in two different ways, by evaluating both (a) the maintenance of Cfunc contextual control after the expansion of a relational network, and (b) the establishment of novel contextual stimuli by the transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations. To achieve the first goal, this study systematically replicated Barnes et al. (1995) and established Cfunc stimuli controlling derived responding based on a three-member equivalence network, which was later extended to five members. To address the second aim, the present study used the strategies of Gatch and Osborne (1989) and Stewart, Barrett et al. (2013) to establish equivalence relations between the Cfunc and novel stimuli so that the latter could indirectly acquire the contextual function of the former. Maintaining consistency with Barnes et al.’s (1995) procedures, this study differs from Gatch and Osborne (1989) and Stewart, Barrett et al. (2013), by presenting two separate conditions: one for the relational training (using a MTS task) and another to measure a behavioral function established apart from the relational network (using a key-pressing task). Given that Stewart, Barrett et al. used a nonarbitrary relational task, an additional difference is that the procedure described here was composed of purely arbitrary relations, to model language in its most abstract forms.

3

Method Participants Four verbally competent adults aged 18 to 35 took part in the experiment. They were recruited on campus while entering the institution to attend courses or to offer services. Those who were interested in participating were later contacted by phone to schedule the data collection. Before the experiment began, participants read a terms of consent statement with information about the research (approved by the Brazilian platform for ethical committees, Plataforma Brasil, protocol number 14957413.7.0000.5511). At the end of the experimental sessions, participants were fully debriefed concerning the goals of the experiment and procedural issues. They received no payment or compensation for participating in the research. Setting, Equipment and Stimuli The experimental sessions took place in a room (3  4 m) equipped with a table, a chair and a laptop computer. Software written in Visual Basic presented stimuli, delivered consequences, and recorded participants’ responses. Figure 1 shows the stimulus sets A through E used. These nonsense symbols (font Wingdings, size 14, black in color), were initially presented on a white background (Phases 1, 2 and 4). Figure 1 also shows stimulus sets F, G and H; these stimuli were presented as backgrounds behind the A-E stimuli during the later phases of the study (Phases 3, 5 and 7); they were also presented without A-E stimuli during one of the phases (Phase 6). Stimuli assigned in the third column of Figure 1 (A3-E3, G3 and H3) were included so that participants had three choices in the MTS task and the establishment of reject control was prevented (Sidman, 1987); these stimuli did not have any further use. A counter appeared at the top center of the screen. When participants made a correct (incorrect) response, 10 (0) points were added to the counter and a soft (dissonant) sound was presented for 1 s. Procedure Participants completed seven experimental phases over the course of one or two sessions, each lasting 30 to 90 min (see Fig. 2 for phase overview). When participants completed a phase, they were given a 2-3 min break.

4

WILLIAM F. PEREZ et al. After you click on it, three other figures will appear in the corners and only one must be chosen. To choose a given figure, just click on it. Correct choices will be awarded with 10 points added to a counter and will be followed by a soft sound; incorrect choices will not produce points and will be followed by a dissonant sound. Your goal is to always win points. Have a good game!

Fig. 1. Visual stimuli used throughout the experimental phases. Stimulus sets A-E were composed of nonsense symbols; stimulus sets F-H were composed of backgrounds. Stimuli assigned to the same column (1-3) were programmed to be part of the same equivalence network; those presented on column 3 were used as a third comparison in the MTS task and did not have any further use during the key-pressing task.

Phase 1. A matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure was used to establish the three 3member equivalence relations shown in Figure 2. Before the first session participants read the following instructions: Some figures will be presented on the monitor screen. Each trial will begin with a figure presented in the center.

As shown in Figure 2, participants were first taught the AB relations (A1B1, A2B2 and A3B3). Trials began by presenting an A sample stimulus (A1, A2, or A3) in the center of the screen (see the upper-left panel of Fig. 3). A mouse click on the sample presented the three comparison stimuli (e.g., B1, B2 and B3) in the locations shown in Figure 3. Clicking the classconsistent comparison stimulus (e.g., B1 given A1) was the correct response, and clicking any of the others was incorrect (e.g., B2 or B3 given A1); visual/auditory consequences were provided accordingly. A 0.5-s intertrial interval (ITI) separated the delivery of consequences from the next trial onset. The A1-A3 sample stimuli were presented in random order with the constraint that the same stimulus could not be presented more than four times consecutively. Across trials, comparison stimuli were randomly presented the same number of times in each location. Training continued until participants met the mastery criterion of 95% correct responses in one block of 27 trials (9 trials each of A1B1, A2B2 and A3B3). This mastery criterion (95% in a block) was used throughout the study. After the mastery criterion was met, participants were taught AC relations (A1C1, A2C2 and A3C3) using the same procedure described for AB relations. Once the participants mastered AC trials, AB and AC trial blocks were mixed into a single block composed of 54 trials. If performance was maintained, to prepare participants for the equivalence tests, they were reexposed to a mixed ABþAC block without programmed consequences; participants were instructed that no feedback would follow choices made during this trial block. If performance was below the mastery criterion, ABþAC mixed training was repeated and participants were reexposed to another block without feedback.

THE TRANSFER OF CFUNC CONTEXTUAL CONTROL

Fig. 2. Summary of experimental Phases 1-7.

5

6

WILLIAM F. PEREZ et al.

Fig. 3. Examples of trials presented in the MTS task (Phases 1, 4 and 6) and in the key-pressing task (Phases 2, 3, 5 and 7).

Finally, tests for the BC and CB derived relations were conducted without programmed consequences. The BC test was composed of 45 trials: 9 of each BC relation (B1C1, B2C3 and B3C3) and 9 of each trained relation (AB and AC trials). Following the BC test, CB relations were tested using the same procedures. Phase 2. Establishing a simple discrimination and testing for transfer of function. In this phase participants were taught to press the X key on the keyboard when they saw B1 and press Z when they saw B2. Prior to Phase 2 they read the following instructions: The computer will present different figures in the center of the screen. For each figure there is a specific key that you must press on the keyboard. These are your options: Z, X, N or M. Remember: Your goal is to always win points!

Each trial began with a B1 or B2 stimulus displayed on the center of the screen (lower-left panel of Fig. 3). No mouse click was required. Instead, pressing any button on the computer keyboard produced programmed consequences for correct (B1 ! press X or B2 ! press Z) or incorrect (everything else) responding. The consequences delivered and ITI values were as in Phase 1. Training blocks were composed of 10 B1 and 10 B2 trials presented in random order with no stimulus presented more than three times consecutively. After the mastery criterion was met, transfer of function tests were carried out by presenting C1 or C2. The transfer-offunction test block was composed of 40 trials, intermixing 10 trials each for B1, B2, C1, and C2; no programmed consequences followed keyboard responses. The transfer of discriminative functions would be verified if C1 ! press X and C2 ! press Z responses occurred.

THE TRANSFER OF CFUNC CONTEXTUAL CONTROL Phase 3. Establishing conditional discrimination and testing for transfer of function. Similar to previous studies (Dougher et al., 2002; Perkins et al., 2007), in this phase, key-pressing responses to B1 and B2 were established under conditional control of two different background colors, Blue (G1) or Yellow (G2) (Figs. 2 and 3). If the background was Blue, B1 ! press X and B2 ! press Z were correct responses; when the background was Yellow, B1 ! press M and B2 ! press N were considered correct. Training blocks were composed of 40 intermixed trials, 10 for each stimulus combination: Blue-B1, Blue-B2, Yellow-B1, and Yellow-B2. Once participants met the mastery criterion, transfer of conditional control was evaluated by presenting C1 and C2 against the Blue and Yellow backgrounds. Transfer of function would be demonstrated if C1 ! press X and C2 ! press Z occurred in the present of Blue, and C1 ! press M and C2 ! press N occurred when stimuli were presented on the Yellow background. The test block was composed of 80 trials, intermixing 10 trials of each stimulus combination: Blue-B1, Blue-B2, Yellow-B1, Yellow-B2 (from training) and Blue-C1, Blue-C2, Yellow-C1, Yellow-C2 (for testing); no programmed consequences occurred. Phase 4. Expanding the relational network to five-member equivalence relations. This experimental phase aimed to expand the relational network by adding CD (C1D1, C2D2, C3D3) and DE (D1E1, D2E2, D3E3) relations (see Fig. 2). CD trials were presented first followed by DE trials. Training blocks were programmed using the same parameters described for AB and AC relations. Once CD and DE relations were taught separately, a mixed CDþDE 54-trial block was presented followed by a mixed ABþACþCDþDE 108-trial block. If the mastery criterion was maintained without programmed consequences, tests for derived BE and EB relations were carried out. BE relations were tested first. The test block was composed of 27 BE trials (9 for each BE relation, B1E1, B2E3 and B3E3) mixed with 36 ABþACþCDþDE training trials (9 trials for each type of conditional relation). After that, EB relations (E1B1, E2B2 and E3B3) were tested following the same parameters. As above, no programmed consequences were arranged during these tests. Phase 5. Testing the transfer of conditional control. This phase started by reviewing a

7

training block of Phase 3 (conditional discrimination training with B stimuli on the Blue and Yellow backgrounds). If the mastery criterion was maintained, transfer of function was tested for D (D1 and D2) and then for E stimuli (E1 and E2) as depicted in Figures 2 and 3 (lower panel). Trial blocks followed the same parameters described for C stimuli in Phase 3. Phase 6. Establishing equivalence relations between colored backgrounds and line patterns. As displayed in Figures 2 and 3 (see the upper-right panels), this experimental phase aimed to establish the Blue and Yellow backgrounds as equivalent to the Horizontal and Vertical line patterns, respectively. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, three stimulus sets were used: F was composed of two different wood patterns, G was composed of three different colored backgrounds, and H was composed of three different line patterns. Phase 1 MTS procedures were used to establish F1G1 and F2G2 relations in training blocks composed of nine trials of each relation. After achieving mastery, the same procedure was used to train F1H1 and F2H2 relations. After mastery, a mixed FG and FH 36trial training block was presented until participants met criterion. Finally, GH and HG equivalence tests were carried out. The GH test block was composed of 12 training trials (3 for each F1G1, F2G2, F1H1 and F2-H2 equivalence relation) and 18 test trials (9 for each relation, G1H1 and G2H2). No programmed consequences followed participants’ responses in test blocks. Next, HG relations were tested using the same parameters described for GH. Phase 7. Testing the transfer of contextual cue (Cfunc) function. This test was programmed to investigate whether key-pressing responses evoked by stimuli from sets B, C, D and E given the Blue (G1) and the Yellow (G2) backgrounds would also occur when those backgrounds were replaced by their equivalent line patterns, Horizontal (H1) and Vertical (H2), respectively, as depicted in Figures 2 and 3 (see the lower-right panel). Four test blocks were carried out. The first one presented B stimuli against a line pattern background. Each test block was composed of 40 trials, 10 for each stimulus combination, in this case, HozirontalB1, Horizontal-B2, Vertical-B1, Vertical-B2. As depicted in Figure 2, whenever the background was Horizontal, pressing X given B1 and Z given B2 were correct responses; whenever the background was Vertical, correct responses were

8

WILLIAM F. PEREZ et al. Table 1 Participants’ performance in the MTS task (Phases 1 and 4). Columns present the number of blocks each participant needed to reach the mastery criterion during training and the percentage of correct responses on the derived-relations test blocks (including baseline training trials). Participants

Phase

MTS-trial block

M

L

I

G

AB

2

6

8

2

Training

AC ABþAC ABþAC (ext)

2 1 1

5 2 1

2 – 1

2 1 1

Test

BC CB

100 100

95.5 100

100 100

100 100

CD DE CDþDE ABþACþCDþDE ABþACþCDþDE (ext)

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1

1 2 1 1 1

BE EB

100 100

100 96.8

100 100

96.8 100

1

Training 4 Test

pressing M given B1 and N given B2. No programmed consequences followed participants’ responses. In the three test blocks that followed, a 40-trial block with B stimuli was mixed with a 40-trial block presenting C, D or E stimuli all against the Horizontal or Vertical backgrounds. Each BþC, BþD and BþE test block was composed of 80 trials. As above, these test blocks were conducted without feedback. Results Table 1 presents results from the MTS task. In Phase 1, participants required from two to eight

training blocks to acquire AB and AC relations to mastery; mixed ABþAC blocks were mastered in 1-2 blocks and participants maintained accuracy when feedback was withdrawn. All participants had high scores in the tests of BC and CB derived relations. Table 2 presents results from the key-pressing task. In simple discrimination training (Phase 2), participants required no more than two training blocks to meet the mastery criterion. The transfer of simple discriminative function (i. e., C1 ! press X and C2 ! press Z) was complete for all participants. In conditional discrimination training (Phase 3) using the colored

Table 2 Participants’ performance in the key-pressing task (Phases 2, 3 and 5). Columns present the number of blocks each participant needed to reach the mastery criterion during the discriminative training and the percentage of correct responses in each transfer-of-function test block (including baseline training trials). Participants Phase

Key-pressing task

2 Simple discrimination 3 5

Conditional discrimination (colored backgrounds)

M

L

I

G

Training with B stimuli

1

2

1

1

Testing transfer of function with C stimuli

100

100

100

100

Training with B stimuli Testing transfer of function with C stimuli

1 100

2 97.5

2 100

1 100

Testing transfer of function with D stimuli Testing transfer of function with E stimuli

100 98.8

98.8 97.5

100 100

98.8 97.5

THE TRANSFER OF CFUNC CONTEXTUAL CONTROL backgrounds, participants required no more than two blocks for the Blue and Yellow backgrounds to exert contextual control over the function of B1 and B2 stimuli. In Phase 3 testing, all participants’ key pressing was consistent with transfer of conditional control for C stimuli (e.g., Blue-C1 ! press X, Yellow-C1 ! press M). In Phase 4, participants took no more than two blocks to finish CD and DE training, and one block to finish CDþDE and ABþACþCDþDE training. Performance was maintained in the ABþACþCDþDE block without feedback. All participants had high scores on tests for derived BE and EB relations after the expansion of the relational network. In Phase 5, participants maintained performance while reviewing the key-pressing task with B stimuli and the colored backgrounds. Test for transfer of conditional control revealed that the Blue and Yellow contextual stimuli controlled key presses made when D and E stimuli served as the samples (e.g., Blue-D1 ! press X, Yellow-D1 ! press M). Table 3 summarizes results from Phases 6 and 7. In Phase 6, FG and FH training was achieved to mastery in the first training block, with the exception of participant G, who required two training blocks. In the tests for derived GH and HG relations, all participants had 100% correct responses. In Phase 7, participants were reexposed to the conditional discrimination task. However,

9

the colored backgrounds (G1 and G2) were replaced with their equivalent line patterns (H1 and H2). Participants M, L and G had high scores in all transfer of contextual cue testing blocks, with B, C, D and E stimuli. Participant I made no correct responses when B stimuli were presented against the line-pattern backgrounds and did not advance to the following phases. She also did not return to the lab for further retraining and retesting. Discussion This study investigated: (a) the maintenance of Cfunc contextual control after the expansion of a relational network and (b) the transfer of contextual cue function (Cfunc) through equivalence relations. Initially, equivalence relations were established and contingencies were arranged so that colored backgrounds functioned as Cfunc stimuli controlling participants’ key-pressing responses in the presence of any stimulus from a three-member equivalence network. To investigate the first research question, the three-member equivalence relations were expanded to five members and the transfer of Cfunc contextual control was evaluated to the novel equivalent stimuli. To address the second goal of the study, the colored backgrounds (Cfunc) were established as equivalent to certain line patterns. The transfer of contextual cue function (Cfunc) was evaluated

Table 3 Participants’ performance in the MTS and key-pressing tasks (Phases 6 and 7). Columns present the number of blocks each participant needed to reach the mastery criterion during the MTS training and the percentage of correct responses on MTS tests for derived relations and on key-pressing transfer-offunction test blocks (both including baseline training trials). Participants Phase 6

Stimuli

M

L

I

G

MTS training

FG FH FGþFH

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

2 2 1

MTS test

GH HG

100 100

100 100

100 100

100 100

Line patterns (backgrounds) and B stimuli

100

97.5

0

100

Testing the transfer of contextual cue function (Key-pressing task)

Line patterns (backgrounds) and C stimuli

100

98.8



100

Line patterns (backgrounds) and D stimuli

98.8

97.5



100

Line patterns (backgrounds) and E stimuli

98.8

100



95

7

10

WILLIAM F. PEREZ et al.

replacing the colored backgrounds with line patterns in the key-pressing task. Results suggest that the Cfunc contextual control was transferred to novel stimuli that were added to the relational network. In addition, results from three of four participants suggest that the line patterns indirectly acquired the contextual cue function (Cfunc) initially established for the colored backgrounds. These results replicate previous findings (Barnes et al., 1995) and add to the literature on transfer of contextual control (Gatch & Osborne, 1989; Stewart, Barrett et al., 2013). Corroborating previous findings from Barnes et al. (1995) our participants had positive results on the transfer-of-function tests involving simple (Phase 2) and conditional discriminative control (Phase 3) of key pressing. These findings suggest that discriminative functions might be transferred under contextual control —or conditional control, in terms of procedure. Extending the Barnes et al. (1995) findings, we report that increasing the size of the relational network to five-member equivalence relations (Phases 4 and 5) did not negatively affect transfer of function. Although previous studies have repeatedly shown that increasing nodal distance might dilute the transfer-of-function effect (e.g., Bortoloti & de Rose, 2009; Fields, Landon-Jimenez, Buffington, & Adams, 1995), this was not the case in the present experiment; perhaps because of the simplicity of the binary key-pressing task (see Bortoloti & de Rose, 2011). Other experimental issues, such as the sequences of equivalence testing prior to transfer-of-function tests and the instructions used (“For each figure there is a specific key”; “Keep responding as you have learned in the previous phase”) might account for the immediate transfer effects observed for all participants (see Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000). Outside the lab, contextual cues (i.e., Cfunc stimuli) control the meaning (i.e., the function) of arbitrary stimuli (see the example of the word “glass” in the Introduction). In the present study, the colored backgrounds served as Cfunc stimuli, controlling the button-pressing response emitted when presented with stimuli in the equivalence network. Participants could make four different responses (pressing the X, Z, M, or N keys) by which they indicated the “meaning” of stimuli in the three-member equivalence relation. Expanding the equivalence relations with two additional members (D and E) and then

testing for Cfunc control revealed that contextual control was maintained; that is, the participants learned the contextualized meaning of novel symbols (D and E) without any explicit training. Since similar behavioral processes might occur in natural settings, for example while learning synonyms, this result is relevant to a behavioral account of language. Systematically replicating the methods and results of Gatch and Osborne (1989) and Stewart, Barrett et al. (2013) we found that Cfunc stimuli may themselves be established as equivalent to novel stimuli and when these equivalent novel stimuli are tested for derived Cfunc function, in three of four participants they exert the same contextual control over responding as the original Cfunc stimuli. These results add to Gatch and Osborne’s (1989) findings by showing a novel contextual function (Cfunc) transferring through equivalence relations. Considering that Stewart, Barrett et al. (2013) investigated the transfer of contextual cue function in a nonarbitrary relational task, the present results also extend those findings by showing how contextually controlled psychological functions might transfer in purely arbitrary relational networks. The transfer of many contextual functions is yet to be investigated. For example, when multiple relational frames are involved (equivalence, opposition, comparison, etc.), contextual cues should modulate the occurrence of different kinds of relational responding (Crel contextual stimuli; see Hayes, Fox et al., 2001, p. 30). Such “Crel” function might also be transferred to equivalent stimuli. Future studies should invest in exploring this issue. Participant I made no correct responses in the transfer of Cfunc test. In a postsession debriefing, this participant reported having made an error in the first test trial that led her to switch responses to maintain coherence. Negative results in transfer of function tests are a common finding in this literature (e.g., Barnes et al., 1995; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988) and have not been precisely explained. It is known that procedural parameters of the MTS task might facilitate transfer-of-function results (e.g., Bortoloti & de Rose, 2009; Bortoloti, Rodrigues, Cortez, Pimentel, & de Rose, 2013). It is also possible that overtraining or test repetitions would eventually yield positive results for that participant (for a caveat, see Barnes & Keenan, 1993). Future studies should address two main limitations of this study. First, future studies

THE TRANSFER OF CFUNC CONTEXTUAL CONTROL should test for derived Cfunc contextual control with a larger number of participants; this will aid in evaluating the generality of our finding. Second, future investigations should use an experimental design that includes: (a) balancing the sequence of test phases (equivalence vs. transfer of function) across participants; (b) reversing some of the conditional relations and retesting to evaluate whether transfer-of-function results follow changes in the relational network; or (c) adding control subjects (for other suggestions, see Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000). In the present study the Cfunc function was initially established by means of a conditional discrimination training procedure (a four-term contingency). Such training yielded key choices in the presence of any stimulus member from the previously established relational network being modulated by colored backgrounds. This was interpreted as a kind of contextual control (see also Barnes et al., 1995) in the sense that the different background colors seemed to determine derived key-pressing responses in the presence of C, D and E stimuli. However, one might argue that this was not the case. The term “contextual control” has been used with a different meaning in the equivalence literature, usually referring to the product of five-term contingencies (see Dougher et al., 2002 for a review; for different cases of contextual control see Bush, Sidman & de Rose, 1989; Dougher et al., 2002; Hayes et al., 1991; Perez-Gonzalez & Serna, 2003; Perkins et al., 2007; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988). However, as the term is applied in RFT (Hayes et al., 2001), ‘contextual control’ does not necessarily imply any specific hierarchy between stimuli (Bush et al., 1989; Gatch & Osborne, 1989; Stewart, Barrett et al., 2013; for further discussion, see Sidman, 1986; Thomas and Schmidt, 1989). Stimulus combinations (as in the case of compound stimuli; e.g., Markham & Dougher, 1993), stimulus physical properties (Perkins et al., 2007) or the way stimulus presentation is arranged (as in the MTS task; see Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Cullinan, & Leader, 2004), might all be interpreted as particular cases of contextual control in the sense that they might affect the transfer of stimulus functions. Thus, although a five-term contingency was not programmed, we assumed the control exerted by the colored backgrounds was a case of Cfunc contextual control and the maintenance of participants’

11

responses when the line patterns replaced their equivalent background colors was the transfer of such contextual cue (Cfunc) function. In the last phases of the present study, participants responded correctly to stimulus combinations (background þ nonsense symbols) towards which no stimulus functions were ever directly taught. This outcome builds upon the study by Barnes et al. (1995) of symbolic control by addressing another important aspect of human language: its generative nature (Stewart, McElwee et al., 2013; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988; see also Chomsky, 1959). Although novel behavior was generated in Barnes et al. (1995) when the contextual control established for B stimuli was transferred to C, the present study underscored the notion that even more complex instances of behavior might derive from smaller trained units (see also Hayes et al., 1991; Sidman, 1994; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988). In addition, it suggests that to account for the complexity of human language, future studies should consider that the expansion of relational networks observed in language acquisition might involve not only the increase in number of stimulus sets or nodes, but also that the contextual cues regulating relational responding are part of relational networks themselves and thus, might have their functions transferred or transformed. Applied studies on derived relational responding have focused on training specific stimulus relations that are useful for participants’ daily life, especially for those with developmental disabilities or academic difficulties (for a review, see Rehfeldt, 2011). Although training specific sets of stimulus–stimulus relations are important, for verbally competent subjects stimulus relations and functions are not static. In natural settings participants must respond under control of different contextual cues that modulate the meaning of many stimuli. Therefore, the transfer of Cfunc function has applied implications. The effects of a broader relational responding protocol that involves multiple-exemplar training of contextually controlled stimulus functions is still open to investigation (Stewart, Barrett et al., 2013). This type of training may be useful in shaping some functional properties of the generalized relational behavior that is taken to be the core of a flexible verbal repertoire (Hayes et al., 2001). Studies that highlight a functional relationship between derived

12

WILLIAM F. PEREZ et al.

relational responding and language skills might support this hypothesis (e.g., Cassidy, Roche, & Hayes, 2011; Cassidy, Roche, & O’Hora, 2010; Stewart, McElwee et al., 2013). Another implication of this study is related to the establishment of novel contextual cues through transfer of function. It might mimic sophisticated aspects of language. One possible example is the use of metaphors: “Struggling with anxiety is like struggling in quicksand” (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999). By establishing a coordination (Crel “is like”) between the two contexts, “anxiety” and “quicksand”, the clinician hopes for some (not all) of the stimulus functions in the latter context to transfer to the former (Foody et al., 2014; for other examples, see Ruiz & Luciano, 2012; 2015; Stewart et al., 2001; T€ orneke, 2010). Theoretically, we should consider that the use of metaphors like this might also involve the transfer of Cfunc functions. Making a parallel, in the present study the extension of the Cfunc function of the colored backgrounds to the line patterns suggests that the participants were “told” that “Responding in the context of the lines is like responding in the context of the colors”. In this sense, the equivalence training between the colored backgrounds and the line patterns served as a “metaphor” that clarified what the participants should do when the horizontal or the vertical lines were presented in the key-pressing task. Future research should explore these questions and investigate the possible extension of these findings in the interpretation of complex phenomenon related to language and cognition. References Barnes, D., Browne, 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. Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of function through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61–81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-6 Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Smeets, P. M., Cullinan, V., & Leader, G. (2004). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivalence: Conceptual and procedural issues. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 181–214. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2009). Assessment of the relatedness of equivalent stimuli through a semantic differential. The Psychological Record, 59, 563–590. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2011). An “Orwellian” account of stimulus equivalence: Are some stimuli

“more equivalent” than others? European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 121–134. Bortoloti, R., Rodrigues, N. C., Cortez, M. D., Pimentel, N., & de Rose, J. C. (2013). Overtraining increases the strength of equivalence relations. Psychology & Neuroscience, 6, 357–364. doi: 10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.13 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-29 Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & Hayes, S. C. (2011). A Relational frame training intervention to raise intelligence quotients: A pilot study. The Psychological Record, 61, 173–198. Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & O’Hora, D. (2010). Relational frame theory and human intelligence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11, 37–51. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–58. de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discriminations established by indirect relations to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1–20. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-1 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331 Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., Fink, B. C., & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 179– 197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05 Dougher, M. J., & Markham, M. R. (1996). Stimulus class formation and the untrained acquisition of stimulus functions. In T. R. Zentall C & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 137– 152). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi 10.1016/S0005-7894 (98) 80018-X Dougher, M. J., Perkins, D. R., Greenway, D. E., Koons, A., & Chiasson, C. A. (2002). Contextual control of equivalence-based transformation of functions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 63–93. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.78-63 Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of selfdiscrimination 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-163 Dymond, S., May, R. J., Munnelly, A., & Hoon, A. E. (2010). Evaluating the evidence base for relational frame theory: A citation analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 97–117. Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: The transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254. Fields, L., Landon-Jimenez, D. V., Buffington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995). Maintained nodal-distance effects in equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129–145. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-129 Foody, M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., T€ orneke, N., Luciano, C., Stewart, I., & McEnteggart, C. (2014). RFT for clinical use: The example of metaphor. Journal

THE TRANSFER OF CFUNC CONTEXTUAL CONTROL of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3, 305–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.08.001 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-369 Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.) (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/b108413 Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., & Wilson, K. G. (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. 73–86). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2407(02) 80063-5 Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1383–1395. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.11.1383 Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119– 137. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-119 Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press. Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Ruiz, F. J., RodrıguezValverde, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Dougher, M. J., & Gutierrez-Martınez, O. (2014). Effects of an acceptance/defusion intervention on experimentally induced generalized avoidance: A laboratory demonstration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 94–111. doi: 10.1002/jeab.68 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. doi: 10.1901/ jeab.1993.60-529 Perez-Gonz alez, L. A., & Serna, R. W. (2003). Transfer of specific contextual functions to novel conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 79, 395–408. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-395 Perkins, D. R., Dougher, M. J., & Greenway, D. E. (2007). Contextual control by function and form of transfer of functions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 87–102. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2007.36-04 Rehfeldt, R. A. (2011). Toward a technology of derived stimulus relations: An analysis of articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1992- 2009. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 109–119. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-109 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.67-275

13

Ruiz, F. J., & Luciano, C. (2012). Relacionar relaciones como modelo analıtico-funcional de la analogıa y la metafora. Acta Comportamentalia, 20, 5–31. Ruiz, F. J., & Luciano, C. (2015). Common physical properties among relational networks improve analogy aptness. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103. Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson C & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. The Behavior Analyst, 22, 11–18. Sidman, M. (1992). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes C & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15–27). Reno, NV: Context Press. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative. Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Lipkens, R. (2001). Relations among relations: analogies, metaphors, and stories. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational Frame Theory. A postskinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 73–86). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2407 (02) 80063-5 Stewart, I., Barrett, K., McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, D., & O’Hora, D. (2013). Multiple contextual control over non-arbitrary relational responding and a preliminary model of pragmatic verbal analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 100, 174–186. doi: 10.1002/jeab.39 Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2013). Language generativity, response generalization, and derived relational responding. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 137–155. Thomas, D. R., & Schmidt E. K. (1989). Does conditional discrimination learning by pigeons necessarily involve hierarchical relationships. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 249–260. doi: 10.1901/ jeab.1989.52-249 T€ orneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical application. Oakland: New Harbinger. Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 177–195. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2004.82-177 Wulfert, 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-125 Received: October 15, 2014 Final Acceptance: March 23, 2015

The transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations.

Derived relational responding is affected by contextual stimuli (Cfunc) that select specific stimulus functions. The present study investigated the tr...
951KB Sizes 3 Downloads 8 Views