Establishing equivalence responding using the respondent-type matching-to-sample procedure

Abstract

This investigation aimed to comprehensively study the Respondent-Type Matching-to-Sample (ReTMTS) procedure, a recently designed procedure that used a respondent-type training procedure with a Matching-to-Sample trial layout to establish three, 3-member equivalence classes. The procedure involved three training phases followed by a test for emergent relations phase. Each training trial presented the sample stimulus first, followed by the three comparison stimuli. Red boxes then appeared around the related sample and comparison to showcase the relation between the two stimuli. Following each training block as a probe trial block where they had to demonstrate mastery of the baseline relations by selecting the appropriate comparison stimulus. Failure to meet criterion in the probe trial blocks resulted in exposure to a retraining block. The final phase tested for the emergent relations of symmetry, equivalence and transitivity depending on the training structure used. All experiments used single-case design. Chapter 2 contained six experiments and investigated the design of the initial experiment, the impact of the probe trials, as well as investigated the effect different training structures had on the procedures success rate. This chapter found that the One-to-Many training structure was the most effective training structure, and that the probe trials were necessary for the establishment of equivalence relations after minimal exposures to baseline relations. Chapter 3’s five experiments looked at decreasing the duration of the individual training trials to determine if shorter training trials will still be effective. It was found that while not as effective as the original timings, there was not an incremental decrease in effectiveness when the timings were decreased. Limited evidence also suggested that a shorter inter-trial-interval relative to the length of the training trials also had an impact on the effectiveness of the procedure. Chapter 4 contained four experiments and investigated the role negative comparisons play on the procedure and found that they are necessary to guarantee the success of the procedure. This chapter also found that the red boxes also hindered the procedure somewhat when they were presented with no negative comparisons. The two experiments of Chapter 5 altered the layout of the training trials while also keeping the negative comparisons. Again, it was found that negative comparisons are a required part of the procedure, but the experiments also showed the importance of the probe trials. Chapter 6 contained two experiments and kept the probe trials absent but Experiment 5.1 presented many more training trials. Both experiments in this chapter also gave the participants the option to gauge their own learning and skip training blocks, though many of the participants did not take advantage of this ability. The results of this chapter suggest that probe trials are not required when many respondent-type training trials are presented. Chapter 7 involved two investigations into exclusion with the ReTMTS procedure and found it to be effective at establishing learning via exclusion. These experiments also represent the first investigations into exclusion with a respondent-type procedure. The four experiments of Chapter 8 investigated the blocking effect with the ReTMTS, with each experiment displaying evidence of blocking occurring. Chapter 9 contains seven experiments investigating transfer of function, with four experiments investigating transfer of a simple drawing function, and two experiments investigating transfer of a motor function, as well as investigated the transfer of related functions. Limited evidence of transfer of function was demonstrated in most of the experiments in this chapter. Like Chapter 7, these experiments represented the first transfer of function experiments to use a respondent-type procedure. Chapter 10 discusses the nature of the ReTMTS procedure, and its implications for wider research and the Naming theory and Relational Frame Theory.

Date of Award	Jan 2024
Original language	English
Supervisor	Mickey Keenan (Supervisor) & Stephen Gallagher (Supervisor)