The Problem of Class Breakdown in Sidman’s (1994, 2000) Theory about the Origin of Stimulus Equivalence
Tóm tắt
Sidman (1994, 2000) hypothesized that equivalence relations are a direct outcome of reinforcement contingencies. This theory is problematic because contingencies do not always result in equivalence. Sidman proposed that equivalence relations may conflict with analytic units, the other outcome of contingencies (e.g., in conditional discriminations with common responses/reinforcers). This conflict may result in a generalized class breakdown and a failure to pass equivalence tests. This is more likely in nonhumans, very young humans, etc. The conflict can also result in a selective class breakdown and success in equivalence tests. This occurs after experience shows the organism the necessity and utility of this process. The nature of that experience and the class breakdown processes were not described by Sidman. I explored the implications of the following hypotheses for Sidman’s theory. First, conditional discriminations with a common response/reinforcer result in a generalized class breakdown when participants fail to discriminate emergent relations incompatible with contingencies from those compatible. Second, learning to discriminate between the two requires a history of multiple exemplar training (MET). This implies that equivalence class breakdown is a common response to exemplars that have nothing in common except their relations. This, however, contradicts Sidman’s views about the impossibility of such process in the absence of a complex verbal repertoire. If that type of learning from MET is possible, then the possibility that MET results in the selective formation of equivalence classes must be admitted, and the utility of hypothesizing that equivalence is a direct outcome of reinforcement contingencies can be questioned.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Boelens, H. (1994). A traditional account of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 44(4), 587–605.
Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-101
Clayton, M. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1999). Conceptual differences in the analysis of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 49, 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395312
Dixon, M., & Spradlin, J. (1976). Establishing stimulus equivalences among retarded adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21(1), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(76)90064-3
Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1995). Stimulus-reinforcer relations and emergent matching to sample. The Psychological Record, 45, 591–612.
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(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.47-159
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(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1989.51-65
Galizio, M., & Bruce, K. E. (2018). Abstraction, multiple exemplar training and the search for derived stimulus relations in animals. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0112-y
Goyos, C. (2000). Equivalence class formation via common reinforcers among preschool children. The Psychological Record, 50, 629–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395375
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). Context Press.
Johnson, C., Meleshkevich, O., & Dube, W. V. (2014). Merging separately established stimulus classes with outcome-specific reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.61
Lionello-DeNolf, K. M. (2021). An update on the search for symmetry in nonhumans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 115(1), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.647
Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & Braga-Kenyon, P. (2013). Membership of defined responses in stimulus classes. The Psychological Record, 63(4), 769–784. https://doi.org/10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.4.005
McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analyst, 26(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392076
Monteiro, P. C. M., & Barros, R. S. (2016). Emergence of auditory-visual relations via equivalence class formation in children diagnosed with autism. The Psychological Record, 66, 563–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0192-1
Pilgrim, C. (2020). Equivalence-based instruction. In J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, & W. L. Heward (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed., pp. 442–496). Pearson.
Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1990). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: The development of generalized skills. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.54-239
Saunders, K. J., Williams, D. C., & Spradlin, J. E. (1996). Derived stimulus control: Are there differences among procedures and processes? In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 93–109). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(06)80105-6
Schenk, J. J. (1994). Emergent relations of equivalence generated by outcome-specific consequences in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 44(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395143
Shimizu, H. (2006). Testing response-stimulus equivalence relations using differential responses as a sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2006.04-03
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05
Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Erlbaum.
Sidman, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93–114). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sidman, M. (1992). Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1992.58-173
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127
Sidman, M. (2018). What is interesting about equivalence relations and behavior? Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0147-8
Sidman, M., & Cresson, O., Jr. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77(5), 515–523.
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(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5
Sidman, M., Cresson, O., Jr., & Willson-Morris, M. (1974). Acquisition of matching to sample via mediated transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22(2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.22-261
Sidman, M., Rauzin, R., Lazar, R., Cunningham, S., Tailby, W., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-23
Sidman, M., Wynne, C. K., Maguire, R. W., & Barnes, T. (1989). Functional classes and equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1989.52-261
Smeets, P. M., Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1997). Functional equivalence in children: derived stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus relations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1997.2378
Spradlin, J. E., Cotter, V. W., & Baxley, N. (1973). Establishing a conditional discrimination without direct training: A study of transfer with retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77(5), 556–566.
Vaidya, M., & Niland, H. (2021). Do common elements predict class merger: A test of Sidman's theory of equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 115(1), 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.659
Varella, A. A., & de Souza, D. G. (2014). Emergence of auditory-visual relations from a visual-visual baseline with auditory-specific consequences in individuals with autism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102(1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.93
Varella, A. A., & de Souza, D. G. (2015). Using class-specific compound consequences to teach dictated and printed letter relations to a child with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(3), 675–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.224