CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 170Behavioral and Psychological StudiesCategorization, perception, and languageAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli

Open access
Dougher, Michael J., Hamilton, Derek A., Fink, Brandi C., Harrington, Jennifer·2007·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
DOI 10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05PMC PMC1986433
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In three experiments, match-to-sample procedures were used with undergraduates to establish arbitrary relational functions for three abstract visual stimuli. In the presence of samples A, B, and C, participants were trained to select the smallest, middle, and largest member, respectively, of a series of three-comparison arrays. In Experiment 1, the B (choose middle) stimulus was then used to train a steady rate of keyboard pressing before the A (choose smallest) and the C (choose largest) stimuli were presented. Participants pressed slower to A and faster to C than to B. Then B was paired with mild shock in a Pavlovian procedure with skin conductance change as the dependent variable. When presented with A and C, 6 of 8 experimental participants showed smaller skin conductance changes to A and larger skin conductance changes to C than to B. In Experiment 2, A was then used as a sample in a match-to-sample procedure to establish an arbitrary size ranking among four same-sized colored circle comparisons. One of the middle circles was then used to establish a steady rate of pressing before the other circles were presented. Five of 6 participants responded slower to the "smaller" circle and faster to the "larger" circle than they did to the "middle" circle. In Experiment 3, A, B, and C were then presented on a series of test trials requiring participants to pick the comparison that was less than, greater than, or equal to the sample. Novel stimuli were included on some trials. Results indicated that the relational training procedures produced derived relations among the stimuli used in training and that these allowed correct inferences of relative size ranking among novel stimuli.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If a person learns in arbitrary matching to sample that three events are related X<Y<Z, and Y is paired with shock, Z will elicit more arousal than Y, even without shocks paired with Z and no physical relationship between Y and Z.

    “For example, if a person learns in arbitrary matching to sample that three events are related in the order X<Y<Z, and if Y is then paired with a shock, Z will elicit more arousal than Y will, even though there were never any shocks paired with Z and there is no physical relationship between Y and Z (Dougher et al. 2007).”

    From Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change (2014) · cites this paper as Dougher et al. 2007

    The Abstract reports that after arbitrary match-to-sample training and pairing the middle stimulus B with mild shock, the larger-ranked stimulus C produced greater skin-conductance changes than B in 6 of 8 experimental participants. The Results and Discussion also say C was never associated with shock. The claim's unqualified 'will elicit more arousal' overstates a result observed in most, but not all, participants. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Humans aroused by a shock-paired stimulus are more aroused by a neutral stimulus related to the original in the presence of a larger-than cue.

    “For example, humans who are aroused by a stimulus that has been paired with shock will be even more aroused by a neutral stimulus related to the original stimulus in the presence of a “larger than” cue (Dougher, Hamilton, Fink, & Harrington, 2007).”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Contextual Behavioral Science: Examining the Progress of a Distinctive Model of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy (2013) · cites this paper as Dougher, Hamilton, Fink, & Harrington, 2007

    The Results and Discussion report that the previously unpaired C stimulus elicited greater skin-conductance changes than the shock-paired B stimulus in most experimental participants. The Procedure describes C as a stimulus trained to occasion selection of the largest comparison, but does not describe a separate “larger than” cue being present during the skin-conductance test. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Augustson, E. M., & Dougher, M. J. (1997). The transfer of avoidance evoking functions through stimulus equiv- alence classes. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experi- mental Psychiatry, 28, 181-191.
  2. Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1967). The development of imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of the Experimental Analy- sis of Behavior, 10, 405-416.
  3. DeLosh, E. L., Busemeyer, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1997). Extrapolation: The sine qua non for function learn- ing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 968-986.
  4. de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimina- tion established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1-20.
  5. 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.
  6. 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). Amster- dam: North Holland.
  7. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1994). A transfer of self- discrimination response functions through equiva- lence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251-267.
  8. 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.
  9. Englemann, S. (1967). Teaching formal operations to preschool advantaged and disadvantaged children. Ontario Journal of Educational Research, 3, 193-207.
  10. Englemann, S., Carnine, D., & Steely, D. G. (2001). Making connections in mathematics. Journal of Learn- ing Disabilities, 24, 292-303.
  11. 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.
  12. Green, G., Sigurdardottir, Z. G., & Saunders, R. R. (1991). The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinal functions through equivalence classes. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 287-304.
  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, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235-244.
  15. Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. K., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential func- tions through simple and conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119-137.
  16. Kinder, D., & Carnine, D. (1991). Direct instruction: What it is and what it is becoming. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 193-213.
  17. Lazar, R. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381-392.
  18. Lowenkron, B. (1989). Instructional control of generalized relational matching to sample in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 293-310.
  19. Markle, S. M., & Tiemann, P. W. (1970). Problems of conceptual learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1, 52-62.
  20. Marks, I. M. (1987). Fears, phobias, and rituals: Panic, anxiety, and their disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
  21. McIlvane, W. J. (2003). A stimulus in need of a response: A review of Relational frame theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition by Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 29-38.
  22. Mineka, S., & Tomarken, A. J. (1989). The role of cognitive biases in the origins and maintenance of fear and anxiety disorders. In T. Archer, & L. Nilsson (Eds.), Aversion, avoidance, and anxiety (pp. 195-221). Hills- dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  23. Palmer, D. C. (2004). Data in search of a principal. A review of Relational frame theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 189-204.
  24. Reese, H. W. (1968). The perception of stimulus relations: Discrimination learning and transposition. New York: Academic Press.
  25. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus functions in ac- cordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275-301.
  26. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the re- inforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127-146.
  27. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.
  28. Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). The transfer of conditional sequencing through conditional equiva- lence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125-144.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., Fink, B. C., & Harrington, J.
Affiliations
University of New Mexico (US)
Corresponding author
Dougher, Michael J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
179-197
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
DOI
10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05
PMC
PMC1986433
OpenAlex
W2030679742
Cited by
170
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
10.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2005 d)
Locations
  • Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
discriminative stimulus, derived relations, relational learning, matching-to-sample, classical conditioning, skin conductance, stimulus generalization, novel stimuli
MeSH terms
Adult, Arousal, Attention, Color Perception, Conditioning, Classical, Discrimination Learning, Fear, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Generalization, Stimulus, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Size Perception, Transfer, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review