On the relation between stimulus equivalence, the naming hypothesis, and relational frame theory in the analysis of verb

1. On the relation between stimulus equivalence, the naming hypothesis, and relational frame theory in the analysis of verbal behavior and cognition Ruth Anne Rehfeldt, PhD, BCBA Southern Illinois University

2. Objectives: • Provide an overview of “Sidman Equivalence,” the Naming Hypothesis, and Relational Frame Theory, highlighting similarities and differences between each • Identify implications of each theoretical perspective for understanding language development in children • Highlight research in support of each conceptual framework

3. A New Book: Released in April: Rehfeldt & Barnes-Holmes, Eds. (2009)

4. Auditory-Visual Visual-Visual “Hat” Hat Bus Toe Match-to-sample: Training and test paradigm for conditional discrimination learning (4-term contingency)

5. Sidman (1994) Account of Stimulus Equivalence:

6. Why Important for the Establishment of Reading Repertoires and In General? • 2 Components of Reading (De Souza, De Rose, Domeniconi, 2009) • Textual Behavior • Comprehension • Both components may be established in the absence of direct instruction • Means by which stimuli come to be symbolic for, or refer to, one another

7. Mathematical Set Theory (Green & Saunders, 1998) • The properties of MTS tests to determine if a conditional relation between stimuli is a relation of equivalence includes: • Reflexivity: A stimulus bears a conditional relation to itself (A=A) • Symmetry: Conditional relations are bidirectional (if train A=B; test B=A) • Transitivity: conditional relations are trained such that each relation has one stimulus in common (train A=B; B=C; test C=A (combined tests for equivalence) • (Based on mathematics and logic)

8. Class Expansion:Sidman, Kirk, & Willson-Morris, 1985) • Establish 3 3-member classes: • A1B1C1, A2B2C2, A3B3C3 • Establish 3 more 3 3-member classes: • D1E1F1, D2E2F2, D3E3F3 • Now merge the classes by training 3 more conditional relations: • E1C1, E2C2, E3C3 • The Result: 3 6-member classes & 60 untrained relations from 12 that were taught • A1B1C1D1E1F1, A2B2C2E2F2, A3B3C3F3

9. Synonyms; Learning of Foreign Languages: • Class 1: • Dictated name “chair” • Dictated name “seat” • Actual object chair • Written word “chair” • Written word “seat” • Class 2: • Dictated name “silla” • Actual object chair • Written word “silla” • Classes merge into one 8-member class

10. Class Merger/Union (Transfer of Functions) • Any stimulus function applied to one member of an equivalence class will transfer to the others in the absence of direct training Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000) • “Class Union” vs. “Transfer” • Much evidence for transfer of functions or class union via equivalence relations: • Discriminative IRT functions: Rehfeldt & Hayes (1998) • Self-Reported Arousal: Smyth, Barnes-Holmes, & Forsyth (2006)

11. “STOP!”

12. Context (the 5th term): Conditional discriminations can be brought under 2nd order control (Sidman, 1996; pp. 349-350) Metal Class Liquid Class • Mercury • Iron • Mercury • Water Archery Class Stringed Instrument Class • “Bow” • Object Bow • Printed Word “Bow” • “Bow” • Object Bow • Printed Word “Bow” Context Prevents the Classes from Merging

13. Much Evidence for Contextual Control: • Serna & Perez-Gonzalez (2003): • x1: A1B1, A2B2; • X2: A1B2; A2B1 • Demonstrated that novel conditional discriminations coul d come under contextual control • Perez-Gonzalez & Serna (2003) • Contextual control generalized to even more conditional discriminations than explicitly taught than above study

14. The Unit of Analysis:can class membership expand to include the reinforcers? • Outcome-specific reinforcement: • A1-B1 = R1 (cookie) • A2-B2= R2 (candy • Does R1 (cookie) = A1 and B1? • Does R2 (candy) = A2 and B2? • Dube et al. (1987; 1989) suggest yes: 3 of the 4 components of the 4-term contingency are equivalent (but see Minster et al., 2000) • Can differential responses enter the class? (all 4 terms)

15. Where do Equivalence Relations come from? • Do not require verbal naming (Sidman et al., 1986)) • Fundamental stimulus function • Behavioral given not derivable from more primitive behavioral functions • Direct outcome of reinforcement • Role of history: Break equivalence classes down

16. Applications to Reading:(De Souza et al., 2009) • How to Expand the Reading Vocabulary and go beyond the 20 words targeted in early Sidman studies? • Use words taught in the first unit as a baseline for teaching new words in the second unit (teach by exclusion; McIlvane & Stoddard, 1981) • Use training words from which recombinations of the within-syllable units are likely to combine into novel words (program for recombinative generalization; Mueller, Olmi, & Saunders, 2000)

17. Exclusion Trial: (bus is mastered) Control Trial: “Bus” “Hat” Hat Bus Bus Toe (de Souza et al., 2009, p. 181)

18. Programming for Recombinative Generalization: Training Words: Generalization Test Words: pat pop pug mat mop mug Mueller et al., (2000)

19. Summary of Sidman Account:

20. The Naming Hypothesis (Horne & Lowe, 1996) • What is the Name Relation? • The Components of Naming: • 1. Listener Behavior: verbal community establishes as discriminative a speaker’s (caregiver) vocal stimulus and socially appropriate (listener) behavior (i.e., orienting, using conventionally) evoked in the listener (child). • Child must discriminate speech patterns of others • Caregivers must observe what child is looking at • Caregiver models & differentially reinforces conventional behavior w/ respect to object • Listener repertoire extends to other physically similar exemplars

21. From Horne & Lowe (1996; p. 195)

22. From Horne & Lowe (1996; p. 196)

23. Components of the Name Relation, cont. • 2. Echoic Behavior: • Reproduction of the verbal responses of others are differentially reinforced • Caregiver imitate child; child imitates caregiver • *Child eventually responds as listener to own verbal utterance – now speaker-listener within same skin • Vocal behavior recedes to covert level; may have automatic conditioned reinforcing properties (Skinner 1957) • Generalizes to other exemplars that are physically similar

24. From Horne & Lowe (1996; p. 199)

25. Components of the Name Relation, cont. • 3: Naming • Objects develop functional control over behavior • Tacting: response that shares a point-to-point correspondence with the antecedent stimulus and is maintained by generalized conditioned rft (Skinner, 1957). • Naming: Objects are then discriminative for tacting AND listener behavior – a bidirectional relation between objects & speaker-listener behavior that they occasion (Horne & Lowe, 199) • Extends to other exemplars of the class

26. From Horne & Lowe (1996; p. 204)

27. Naming as a Higher Order Relation • After so many exemplars in which listener, echoic, and tacting behaviors are reinforced, a child need only hear a caregiver name a novel object a few times before the name relation emerges (Horne & Lowe, 1996) • Increasingly occur at covert level

28. What does this all mean for understanding stimulus equivalence? • Emergent repertoires are the result of stimuli being in the same name relation (Horne & Lowe, 1996) • Successful equivalence test performance is a demonstration of bidirectional naming

29. Both tasks involve listener behavior: Auditory-Visual Visual-Visual “Hat” Ω £ ╕ پ Hat Bus Toe Participant may echo sample stimulus; then tact correct comparison . Result: bidirectional relation between stimuli, names, and listener behavior. Participants search for features to which they can apply common (or intraverbal) names; naming may occur covertly. Bidirectional relation between names, stimuli, and listener behavior results.

30. Evidence for Naming: • Auditory visual conditional discriminations require less time to acquire (Green, 1990: Lipkens, Hayes & Hayes, 1993) • Lowe et al. (2002): Applying common tacts to stimuli resulted in class formation (sorting) and listener behavior (receptive ID) in 2-4 year olds • Horne et al. (2004): Listener training (receptive ID) was NOT sufficient for producing class formation (sorting) or tacting in 1-4 year olds • Randell & Remington (2006): visual classes of common pictoral stimuli with rhyming names formed more readily than those without rhyming names

31. BUT……. • What about evidence for stimulus equivalence in nonverbal organisms who cannot name? • Kastak et al. (2001; 2002): Successful test performance in sea lions following class specific rft (2001) and exclusion (2002) procedures • Carr et al. (2000): Successful test performance in persons with severe intellectual disabilities and very limited verbal repertoires • Issues re: rft of test trials

32. Application to Educational Curricula: (Miguel & Petursdottir, 2009) • Not all children have the history with exemplars for listener, echoic, and tacting behaviors • Not efficient (see Horne et al., 2004) to teach listener training first (Lowe et al., 2002) • May be more efficient to establish tact repertoire first • Intersperse tact and listener trials during instruction

33. Application to Educational Curricula: (Miguel & Petursdottir, 2009) 1. Prerequisites: Generalized echoic A number of basic tacts and listener relations for same items Instructional control over those skills 2. Tact Training 3. Listener Test for Stimuli Used in Tact Training 4. Multiple exemplar training and testing: train one listener behavior for a stimulus reliably tacted at a time, test for listener behavior, etc.

34. Summary of Naming Account:

35. Relational Frame TheoryHayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001) • Relating is operant behavior • Generalized, overarching, or higher order, operant class, similar to generalized imitation • Relating: responding to one event in terms of another (bigger, smaller, rounder, etc.) = nonarbitrary relations • Arbitrarily applicable: a relation brought to bear on any stimuli encountered in the appropriate relational context: occurs over the course of childhood (#s, money, time, etc.)

36. What sort of learning history gives rise to relating? • Exposure to multiple exemplars across a variety of contexts • Caregiver differentially reinforces identification of AND naming of objects (“say car,” “show me car”) IN A NUMBER OF CONTEXTS • Bidirectional responding is directly reinforced • Symmetrical responding may then emerge w/ novel stimuli in the right context (“is the same as,” “Matches,” “which is bigger than,” etc.) • Frame: the relation; the contextually controlled response; particular kinds of relational responding (Hayes et al. 2001)

37. Stimuli are not only related in terms of equivalence (sameness) • A wide variety of relational responses are possible if relating can be brought under contextual control • Mutual entailment: responding to one event in terms of the other (if A is larger than B, B is smaller than A) • Combinatorial entailment: 2 or more relations train mutually combine (if A is related to B, B to C, then A and C are related in that context) • Transformation of Functions: a function trained to one member of a relational network will be transformed with respect to the other stimuli in accordance with the relation between the stimuli (see Whelan et al., 2006)

38. Evidence for Relating as Higher Order Operant • Luciano et al. (2007): showed that MET in receptive symmetry relations (object/sound) facilitated emergence of visual-visual equivalence relations in child 15-23 mos. Of age. • Receptive symmetry emerged at 16 mos. • Visual-visual equivalence emerged following MET at 19 mos • Naming emerged following MET at 22-23 mos. • see also (Berens & Hayes, 2007)

39. Rosales & Rehfeldt (Experiment 1; Rosales Dissertation). Establishing Bidirectional Symmetry in Children Learning English as a Second Language Application of derived stimulus relations protocol to Spanish-speaking pre-school children learning English as a second language Will multiple exemplar training facilitate the emergence of simple English picture-name relations in young children? Teach A-B (receptive identification of 4 objects using Eng.name) Test B-A (oral naming of objects using Engl. Name) IS MET of training A-B and B-A with up to 12 other objects sufficient for establishing emergent symmetry in training objects?

41. RFT Analysis of Perspective-Taking • Perspective-Taking is generalized operant responding involving “deictic” relations (cannot be traced to the formal dimensions of the stimuli (Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, & Dymond, 2001) • Speaker is required to change perspectives between different references of : • Person (I vs. You); • Place (Here vs. There); • Time (Now vs. Then). • Emerges following a reinforced history of responding to questions such as: • “What were you doing THEN” • “What would you do if you were ME “ • “What will you do when you get THERE”

42. McHugh, Barnes-Homes, & Barnes-Holmes (2004): • Developed comprehensive “Barnes-Holmes Protocol:” • Three deictic relations of I-You, Here-There, and Now-Then. • Simple Relations • I-You • Here-There • Now-Then • Example: “I have a red brick and you have a green brick. Which brick do I have? Which brick do you have?” • Reversed Relations • I-You • Here-There • Now-Then • Example: “I am sitting here on the red chair and you are sitting there on the blue chair. If here was there and there was here, which chair would you be sitting on? Which chair would I be sitting on? • Double Reversed • I-You/Here-There • Here-There/Now-Then • Example: “Yesterday I was sitting there on the pink couch, today I am sitting here on the purpole couch. If here was there and there was here and if now was then and then was now, where would I be sitting then? Where would I be sitting now? • Presentedinconversational format • Errors decreased systematically as a function of age of children

43. Rehfeldt, Dillen, Ziomek, & Kowalchuck (2007): • Determine if relational learning deficits in perspective-taking protocol are present for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders vs. age-matched peers without disabilities • Study consisted of 57 trials adopted from the Barnes-Holmes protocol, with each trial consisting of two questions. For a trial to be scored as correct, both questions had to be answered correctly. No feedback was provided. • Simple relations (N = 8) • 2 I-You, 2 Here-There, 4 Now-Then • Reversed relations (N = 36) • 8 I-You, 12 Here-There, 16 Now-Then • Double Reversed relations (N = 13) • 4 I-You/Here-There, 9 Here-There/Now-Then • Sequence of trials were randomly determined

44. Overall Mean Percentage Errors • 2X3 Mixed ANOVA (Group by Relation) • Main effect of relational complexity; Wilk’s λ, F (2, 15) = 12.870, p = .001 • Pairwise Comparisons showed sig. differences btw simple and reversed with more errors on reversed (p < .001) • Near significant interaction using Wilk’s λ, F (2, 15) = 3.354, p = .063 • Groups differed on reversed relations

45. Reversed Relations in More Detail • Autism group clearly made more errors on each of the subtypes of reversed relations

46. What else do we know about Perspective-taking as relational responding? • Rehfeldt et al. (2007): deictic relations are sensitive to reinforcement contingencies • Heagle & Rehfeldt (2006): the relations will also generalize to novel stimuli and response topographies • McHugh et al. & Luciano et al. (2009): protocols for teaching perspective-taking and empathy from an RFT perspective

47. Summary of RFT Account:

48. Special Thanks to: Brooke Walker, Rocio Rosales, Yors Garcia, Sadie Lovett, & Stephen Filipiak For outstanding contributions and input!