Multiple functions in equivalence classes

: effects of prior history

Abstract

In keeping with the practice of using a single-case design methodology that is considered to be the normal practice for this area of research, each participant was trained and tested individually using either a pencil and paper protocol in their own homes or on a computer within one of the psychology research laboratories in Ulster University, Coleraine. In order for each participant to be able to give informed consent, each participant received the Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form before beginning the experiment. Progress through the training procedure was done at the participant’s own pace and any assessment for equivalence relations only occurred once mastery criteria had been reached within each of the training phases. None of the data was analysed using inferential statistics as this would result in important individual differences in responding being lost with the use of group averaging.

Taking a lead from previous research on multiple functions, the research described in the following chapters provides evidence of how a variety of functions interact within equivalence classes.

Chapter 2: Experiments 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. These experiments examined whether or not each of the functions controlled by different stimuli in an equivalence class would become integrated in a test for transfer of function. In Experiment 2.1, a paper-and-pencil protocol was used to establish two three-member equivalence classes (A1, B1,C1 & A2, B2, C2). Nonsense syllables were used for all stimuli except for B1 and C1 which were pictures of blue and green discs respectively. Participants then were presented with five boxes containing discs of five different colours, including blue and green. Participants were instructed to respond as they felt appropriate. Across all participants, varying numbers of blue and green discs were placed on B1 and C1 respectively. Responding at A1 included combinations of blue and green discs by seven out of eight participants. These results were replicated after the classes were extended to include D and E stimuli. In Experiment 2.2, the overall procedure was repeated, however, there was a pretraining condition in which participants were instructed to select and place discs of their choosing on each of B1 and C1. In general, responding within both classes was consistent with results in Experiment 2.1. Two participants placed similar combinations of coloured discs at A1, D1, and E1 but retained the single colours at B1 and C1. Experiment 2.3 changed the B1 and C1 stimuli to nonsense syllables and trained the function to placing coloured discs at B1 and C1. It was found that results were similar to those found in both Experiments 2.1 and 2.2. Results are discussed in the context of procedures used to investigate the emergence of novel behaviour.

Chapter 3: Experiments 3.1 to 3.12 used a pencil and paper procedure to train and test for two three-member equivalence classes. Experiment 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9 pre-trained drawing the left-hand arc of a circle to B1 of the first class, drawing the figure of a stickwoman and using the written word for stickwoman at C1 of the first class respectively. Experiments 3.3, 3.7 and 3.11 used the same procedure as Experiment 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9 with the only amendment being when the training of the drawing function occurred. In Experiment 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9 the training of the drawing functions came after the equivalence relations had been established. The findings from these studiers demonstrated that when the training of the function occurs has little effect on the transfer/transformation of function. Further findings from these experiments showed that responding to the remaining members of the first class were not in keeping with what was expected, in so far as the transfer of the drawing function was limited to only four of the participants. Results are discussed in the context of procedures used to investigate the emergence of novel behaviour.

In Experiments 3.2, 3.6, and 3.10 the same procedure was used as in Experiments 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9 with the only change being that instead of a single function being trained to one member of an equivalence class, two drawing functions were trained. i.e., the left- and right-hand arcs of a circle were trained to B1 and C1 respectively, the figure of a stickman and the figure of a stickwoman were trained to B1 and C1 respectively and the written word for stickman and the written word for stickwoman were trained to B1 and C1 respectively. These experiments examined whether each of the functions controlled by different stimuli in an equivalence class would become integrated in some form in a test for transfer/transformation of function. The results from these experiments showed that a transfer/transformation of function occurred. However, the results also showed variability in the responses gathered. In Experiments 3.4, 3.8 and 3.12 replicated Experiments 3.2, 3.6, and 3.10 with the only change occurring when the functions were trained. The functions trained during these experiments occurred after training and testing for equivalence relations. The findings reported in these experiments were similar to that reported in Experiments 3.2, 3.6, and 3.10. Results are discussed in the context of the emergence of novel behaviour.

Chapter 4: Experiments 4.1 to 4.7 used a computer-based procedure to train and test for equivalence relations using nonsense syllables to form two 3-member stimulus equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1, A2-B2-C2), this study examined the effects of training drawing functions at two stimuli within Class 1 (B1 & C1). Within Experiment 4.1, participants were instructed to draw the left and right-hand arcs of a circle at B1 and C1 respectively, prior to the training and testing for equivalence relations. In Experiment 4.2 participants were instructed to draw the left and right-hand arcs of a circle at B1 and C1 respectively, after the training and testing for equivalence relations had occurred. Experiments 4.3 and 4.4 were replications of Experiments 4.1 and 4.2 with the only modification being the drawing functions being changed from the arcs of a circle to the figures of a stickman and stickwoman. Experiments 4.5 and 4.6 were replications of Experiments 4.3 and 4.4 with the only modification being the change in the drawing functions from the figures of a stickman and a stickwoman to the written word for stickman and the written word for stickwoman. In Experiment 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6; Subsequent tests for function transfer revealed various novel drawings that often included a combination of the originally trained drawings or participants modified the drawing functions at A1. Experiment 4.7 was a replication of Experiment 4.3 with the only modification being that no verbal or written instructions were provided during the training of the drawing functions (Phase 1) and during testing for emergent functions (Phase 5). Results are discussed in the context of the emergence of novel behaviour.

Chapter 5: Experiments 5.1 to 5.6, used the exact same procedure used in Chapter 4 only this time the stimuli that the drawing functions were trained to KAP (B1) and TIV (C1) were always presented first in the tests for emergent functions. Results showed that this procedural change had little effect on responding as the responses recorded here were similar to what had been reported in the previous chapters.

Chapter 6: Experiments 6.1 to 6.3. used the same procedure as Chapter 5 with the only difference being that the stimuli used in the formation of both stimulus classes were changed from nonsense syllable to Arabic letters. This was done to explore if responding in the second class was occurring due to the simplicity of the nonsense syllables used. Results showed that this procedural change had little effect on responding as the responses recorded here were similar to what had been reported in the previous chapters.

Chapter 7: Experiments 7.1 and 7.2 that tested how a variety of motor functions interact within equivalence classes. Experiment 7.1 pretrained two motor functions at B1 and C1. The motor function trained at B1 involved placing a golf club in the left hand and raising that arm in a horizontal position and the motor function trained at C1, involved placing the golf club in the right hand and raising that arm in a horizontal position. Experiment 7.2 was an exact replication of Experiment 7.1 except a stick was used instead of a golfclub. Results showed a combination of function at A1.

Chapter 8: Experiments 8.1 and 8.2 used the same procedure as Chapter 5 with the only difference being that the stimulus response cards were now placed horizontally with the nonsense syllable placed in the middle of the response card limiting the available drawing space. Results showed that this procedural change effected responding as the responses recorded here were different to what had been reported in the previous chapters.

Date of Award	Jan 2024
Original language	English
Supervisor	Robert Bones (Supervisor) & Mickey Keenan (Supervisor)