Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2002 Nov;78(3):509–525. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.78-509

On the role of covarying functions in stimulus class formation and transfer of function.

Rebecca G Markham 1, Michael R Markham 1
PMCID: PMC1284913  PMID: 12507017

Abstract

This experiment investigated whether directly trained covarying functions are necessary for stimulus class formation and transfer of function in humans. Initial class training was designed to establish two respondent-based stimulus classes by pairing two visual stimuli with shock and two other visual stimuli with no shock. Next, two operant discrimination functions were trained to one stimulus of each putative class. The no-shock group received the same training and testing in all phases, except no stimuli were ever paired with shock. The data indicated that skin conductance response conditioning did not occur for the shock groups or for the no-shock group. Tests showed transfer of the established discriminative functions, however, only for the shock groups, indicating the formation of two stimulus classes only for those participants who received respondent class training. The results suggest that transfer of function does not depend on first covarying the stimulus class functions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (209.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Augustson E. M., Dougher M. J. The transfer of avoidance evoking functions through stimulus equivalence classes. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1997 Sep;28(3):181–191. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7916(97)00008-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Devany J. M., Hayes S. C., Nelson R. O. Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Nov;46(3):243–257. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dougher M. J., Augustson E., Markham M. R., Greenway D. E., Wulfert E. The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Nov;62(3):331–351. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gatch M. B., Osborne J. G. Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 May;51(3):369–378. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Girvin J. P., Marks L. E., Antunes J. L., Quest D. O., O'Keefe M. D., Ning P., Dobelle W. H. Electrocutaneous stimulation I. The effects of stimulus parameters on absolute threshold. Percept Psychophys. 1982 Dec;32(6):524–528. doi: 10.3758/bf03204205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hayes S. C., Kohlenberg B. S., Hayes L. J. The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jul;56(1):119–137. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Honey R. C., Hall G. Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1989 Oct;15(4):338–346. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Horne P. J., Lowe C. F. On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):185–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Levis D. J., Smith J. E. Getting individual differences in autonomic reactivity to work for instead of against you: determining the dominant "psychological" stress channel on the basis of a "biological" stress test. Psychophysiology. 1987 May;24(3):346–352. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00307.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lickliter R., Bahrick L. E. The development of infant intersensory perception: advantages of a comparative convergent-operations approach. Psychol Bull. 2000 Mar;126(2):260–280. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lykken D. T., Venables P. H. Direct measurement of skin conductance: a proposal for standardization. Psychophysiology. 1971 Sep;8(5):656–672. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1971.tb00501.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. O'Gorman J. G. Individual differences in the orienting response: nonresponding in nonclinical samples. Pavlov J Biol Sci. 1990 Jul-Sep;25(3):104–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rescorla R. A. Conditioned inhibition of fear resulting from negative CS-US contingencies. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1969 Apr;67(4):504–509. doi: 10.1037/h0027313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rescorla R. A. Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1968 Aug;66(1):1–5. doi: 10.1037/h0025984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Saunders R. R., Green G. The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Mar;57(2):227–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidman M. Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jul;74(1):127–146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sidman M., Tailby W. Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES