INCONGRUOUS STIMULUS PAIRING AND CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION TRAINING: EFFECTS ON RELATIONAL RESPONDING

Bryan T. Roche · Dermot Barnes · Paul M. Smeets

47 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Behavioral and Psychological Studies Memory and Neural Mechanisms Memory Processes and Influences

Abstract

In Experiment 1, 5 subjects were exposed to a stimulus‐pairing procedure in which two nonsense syllables, identified by a letter‐number code as A1 and C2, each predicted the onset of a sexual film clip, and the nonsense syllables A2 and C1 each predicted the onset of a nonsexual film clip. Subjects were then exposed to a matching‐to‐sample test in which the nonsense syllables A1 and A2 were presented as sample stimuli and C1 and C2 were presented as comparison stimuli and vice versa (i.e., C stimuli as samples and A stimuli as comparisons). All subjects matched A1 with C2 and A2 with C1. Subjects were then trained on the conditional discriminations A1‐B1, A2‐B2, B1‐C1, B2‐C2, after which the matching‐to‐sample test was again administered. All subjects continued to match A1 with C2 and A2 with C1 in accordance with the earlier stimulus‐pairing contingencies. An additional 5 subjects were exposed first to conditional discrimination training and testing before being exposed to the incongruous stimulus pairing and matching‐to‐sample testing. Under these conditions, 4 of the 5 subjects always matched A1 with C1 and A2 with C2. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, except that a matching‐to‐sample test was not administered following the initial training procedure. Under these conditions, matching‐to‐sample test performances were controlled by the contingencies that had immediately preceded the test. Experiment 3 indicated that initial matching‐to‐sample test performances were unlikely to change, even after repeated exposure to incongruous training and testing. Experiment 4 demonstrated that pretraining with unrelated stimulus sets increased the sensitivity of matching‐to‐sample test performances to incongruous contingencies when they were similar in format to those arranged during pretraining. These data may have implications for a behavior‐analytic interpretation of attitude formation and change.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.

References

1988TRANSFER OF A CONDITIONAL ORDERING RESPONSE THROUGH CONDITIONAL EQUIVALENCE CLASSES 1973Establishing a conditional discrimination without direct training: a study of transfer with retarded adolescents.1990Equivalence relations: Where do they come from?1989CONTEXTUAL CONTROL OF EMERGENT EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 1994Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory 1990THE EFFECTS OF NODALITY ON THE FORMATION OF EQUIVALENCE CLASSES 1996Establishing Equivalence Relations Using a Respondent-Type Training Procedure 1988THE MERGER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIVALENCE CLASSES BY UNREINFORCED CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF COMPARISON STIMULI

Cited by

2018Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: What Are the Basic Processes of Change?1999EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS BETWEEN VISUAL STIMULI: THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE OF NAMING 2000A Precursor to the Relational Evaluation Procedure: Analyzing Stimulus Equivalence II

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.