Towards a behavioral analysis of humor: derived transfer of self-reported humor ratings.
As a partial replication of Grey and Barnes (1996), the transfer of
discriminative functions in accordance with equivalence relations was
examined. Twelve participants were exposed to one of two conditions. In
Condition 1, six participants were trained in six matching-to-sample
tasks (A1-B1, A1-C1, A2-B2, A2-C2, A3-B3, A3-C3) and were then tested
for the formation of three equivalence relations (B1-C1, B2-C2, B3-C3).
One member from two of these relations (B1 and B2) was then used to
label one of two videocassettes that contained either humorous (B1) or
nonhumorous (B2) material that the participant viewed. In order to test
for a transfer of functions, two tests were administered. Participants
were first presented with four new videos, labeled A1, A2, C1, and C2,
and were asked to categorize them as humorous or nonhumorous,
respectively. Next, participants were asked to write down what visual
material they thought was on videos C1 and C2, respectively. In
Condition 2, participants were not exposed to a prior matching-to-sample
equivalence test. The sequence of transfer test phases was alternated
across participants in both conditions. All participants in Condition 1
and three of the participants in Condition 2 sorted the unseen videos in
a class-consistent fashion, while a total of seven participants
categorized C1 and C2 as humorous and nonhumorous, respectively.
Implications for a preliminary behavioral analysis of humor are
Keywords: Humor, Derived Transfer, Self-reported Humor Ratings, Relational Frame of Equivalence
Wit and humor
|Publication:||Name: The Behavior Analyst Today Publisher: Behavior Analyst Online Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Psychology and mental health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2007 Behavior Analyst Online ISSN: 1539-4352|
|Issue:||Date: Fall, 2007 Source Volume: 8 Source Issue: 4|
|Topic:||Canadian Subject Form: Humour|
|Product:||Product Code: 3652070 Prerecorded Video Tapes NAICS Code: 5121 Motion Picture and Video Industries|
Recently, behavior analysts have shown considerable interest in the
burgeoning research area of derived stimulus relations which, many
argue, may provide the foundations for a behavioral account of novel,
complex behavior. Typically studied using a matching-to-sample (MTS)
procedure, the basic finding is as follows. Suppose, for instance,
reinforcement is delivered for selection of comparison B in the presence
of the sample A, and for selection of comparison C in the presence of
sample B, respectively. Most verbally able humans will now readily
reverse these explicitly reinforced conditional discriminations in the
absence of further training. That is, they will now select A given B,
and B given C in accordance with derived symmetrical, or mutually
entailed, stimulus relations. Furthermore, participants will now also
select C given A and A given C in accordance with derived transitive and
equivalence, or combinatorially entailed, stimulus relations without
further training. Following such derived performances, the stimuli are
said to participate in an equivalence class (Sidman, 1994) or a
relational frame of equivalence (Barnes, 1994; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes,
& Roche, 2001). Perhaps what is most interesting about derived
stimulus relations such as equivalence is that the test outcomes are not
readily predicted from the traditional concept of conditional
discrimination; neither A nor C has a direct history of differential
reinforcement with regard to the other, and therefore neither stimulus
should control selection of the other.
Another feature of derived stimulus relations is the transfer of stimulus functions, which has also generated research interest due in part to its implications for understanding a wide range of complex, derived behavior. The transfer of stimulus functions occurs when the function of one stimulus in a derived relation alters the functions of another according to the derived relation between the two, without additional training (see Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000). To date, the transfer of functions through equivalence relations has been demonstrated with discriminative (e.g., Barnes & Keenan, 1993; Grey & Barnes, 1996; Roche, Barnes-Holmes, Smeets, Barnes-Holmes, & McGeady, 2000; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988), self-discriminative (Dymond & Barnes, 1994, 1997, 1998), consequential (Hayes, Kohlenberg, & Hayes, 1991; Greenway, Dougher, & Wulfert, 1996), and respondent (Dougher Augustson, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994; Roche & Barnes, 1997; Roche et al., 2000) stimulus functions in adults and children. For instance, Barnes and Keenan (1993) first trained participants on a series of related conditional discriminations in a MTS format (i.e., A1-B1, A1-C1, A2-B2, A2C2), and then explicitly trained high-rate and low-rate performances on a schedule task in the presence of the two B stimuli (i.e., B1 = low-rate, B2 = high-rate). Subsequently, the researchers demonstrated a transfer of discriminative control over the two types of schedule performance through derived equivalence relations (i.e., C1 = low rate, and C2 = high rate), without any further training.
The transfer of stimulus functions may have implications for a contemporary understanding of complex behavior, and the research topics investigated usually reflect this. Several studies have either employed procedures germane to a behavioral analysis of, for instance, self-awareness (e.g., Dymond & Barnes, 1997), sexual arousal (Roche & Barnes, 1997), rule-following (Barnes-Holmes, Healy, & Hayes, 2000), and attitude formation (Grey & Barnes, 1996) or have highlighted similarities between the transfer of functions and complex behavior beyond the laboratory (e.g., Friman, Hayes, & Wilson, 1998; Roche et al., 2000; Wilson & Hayes, 2000). An important issue in much of this research is the development of new procedures to measure the transfer of functions in ways that formally resemble the behavior of interest. That is, in everyday functioning, the derivation of stimulus relations and the transfer of functions through these relations likely follow a different sequence and are measured in a different manner to that employed in research studies. Typically, in a transfer of functions study, a particular behavioral function is directly trained for one member of a derived stimulus relation (i.e., B), and following this, some or all of the remaining stimuli (i.e., C, A, etc.) are tested to see if they have acquired the function, without additional training. The transfer training and testing phases are usually formally similar to each other and differ with respect to the stimuli presented (e.g., B during training and C during testing) and the delivery of reinforcement.
Some researchers have measured derived transfer using novel procedures (e.g., Grey & Barnes, 1996; Roche et al., 2000; Smyth, Barnes-Holmes, & Forsyth, 2006). For example, Grey and Barnes (1996, Experiment 1) first trained and tested for the formation of three, three-member equivalence relations. One member from two of these relations (B1 and B2) was placed on one of two videocassettes in the form of a label. Participants were then exposed to the two videos, each of which contained scenes of either a sexual or religious nature. This can be considered to be the transfer of functions training phase. In order to test for a transfer of functions, two tests were administered. In the first test, participants were presented with four new videos labeled with the remaining stimuli (i.e., A1, C1, A2, and C2) and were asked to categorize these unseen videos as "good" or "bad". In the second test, participants were presented with the two videos marked C1 and C2 and asked "what visual material do you think is on these videos?" All participants categorized the videos in accordance with the established equivalence relations. Procedures such as those of Grey and Barnes (1996) are notable in that they employed 'real-world' stimulus functions (i.e., visual material related to sex and religion) and measured a transfer of functions using both a manual stimulus sorting task and verbal self-reports. It remains to be seen whether other stimulus functions can be transferred, and measured, using similar procedures.
The present study sought to replicate and extend the findings of Grey and Barnes (1996) with the following three important differences. First, the discriminative functions of 'humor' and 'nonhumorous' were established through exposure to two preselected video recordings of humorous and nonhumorous material. Second, the role played by prior equivalence testing in the transfer of functions was examined. Previous studies have shown that discriminative (Barnes & Keenan, 1993; Rehfeldt & Hayes, 1998), self-discriminative (Dymond & Barnes, 1998), consequential (Hayes et al., 1991) and ordering (Wulfert & Hayes, 1988) functions can transfer, in accordance with equivalence relations, without a prior MTS test for such relations. Such findings suggest that the formal, MTS demonstration of derived relations was not necessary for stimulus functions to transfer. In Condition 1 of the present study, participants were exposed to MTS training and equivalence testing, while participants in Condition 2 did not receive a prior equivalence test. Finally, the sequence of experimental phases that measured the transfer of functions, as administered by Grey and Barnes, was alternated across participants. This was undertaken to determine whether exposure to one phase facilitated performance on the next.
Twelve undergraduate volunteers from Anglia Ruskin University, nine female and three male, between 18 and 45 years of age were recruited from personal contacts. None of the participants had any knowledge of stimulus equivalence or related phenomena. Apparatus and Materials
Participants were seated at a table in a small experimental room containing an Apple_ iMac computer, which displayed black characters on a white background. All MTS trials were presented on the computer, which was programmed in BBC BASIC. White, circular paper stickers were applied to the "Z", "V" and "M" keys on the computer keyboard to designate them as response keys.
Nine nonsense syllables were employed in the study (ZID, BIH, ROG, QAT, VEK, DUT, CAJ, YUV, and HEZ) and, in the interests of clarity, will be referred to by the alphanumerics A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, and C3. Discriminative functions were established for two nonsense syllables (B1 and B2) using a 5-min film clip taken from a popular Irish comedy series and a nature documentary. The comedy clip depicted a sit-com of the daily adventures of three Irish Catholic priests sharing a remote house; this clip was designated "humorous."
The nature clip contained narrated scenes of tropical landscapes and bird song; this clip was designated "non-humorous".
All video presentations were shown on an integrated GBI television/video unit (model 11410P) located in the experimental room. Six videocassettes in standardized dust covers were used. Each dust cover had a 3" x 5" blank card with a 1" x 5" yellow label glued to it. On each of the yellow labels was one of six nonsense-syllables (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2) printed in 60-point bold font.
Figure 1 gives an overview of the experimental procedure. Participants in Condition 1 were exposed to MTS equivalence training and testing, whereas participants in Condition 2 did not receive a prior MTS equivalence test. Within each condition, the sequence of exposure to Phases 3 and 4 was alternated across participants. That is, half of the participants received Phase 3 first, then Phase 4, and vice versa.
All participants were tested individually in sessions lasting between thirty and fifty minutes. Participants were asked not to discuss either their participation or the details of the procedure with anyone until the study was over. At the beginning of the session, participants were seated in front of the computer while the experimenter read aloud the following instructions:
A copy of these instructions was left on the table beside the computer. Participants were also told that if their choice was defined as correct, the computer would initially flash the word "Correct" and if defined as incorrect, the computer would flash the word "Wrong", but later they would not receive any feedback on their performance. The computer controlled for typing errors on all tasks (i.e., hitting one of the nonfunctioning keys on the keyboard). Specifically, the message "You have made a mistake--try again" appeared on the screen for two seconds and immediately after, the participant was presented with the same sample and comparisons. The appropriate feedback followed this correction procedure. Participants were informed that they were free to terminate the study at any point should they wish.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Participants were asked if they understood the instructions and if they replied "No", the instructions were re-read until they indicated that they understood them. All tasks were presented on the computer monitor. Each phase of tasks is depicted in Figure 1.
Phase 1: Matching-to-sample equivalence training and testing: On each MTS trial, the sample (A1, A2, or A3) was presented, followed 1.5-s later by three comparison stimuli (i.e., B1, B2, B3, or C1, C2, C3). Participants were first trained on the three A-B MTS tasks. Each of these was presented in a quasi-random order (i.e., each task presented twice in each block of six trials) until the participant produced six consecutive correct responses across one block of six trials. The same procedure was then used to train the three A-C relations. Finally, all six A-B and A-C MTS tasks were quasi-randomly mixed (i.e., each of the six trial types presented once every six trials). Participants were required to produce a total of six consecutive correct responses across one block of six trials before training was terminated. When A1 was the sample, B1 and C1 were correct. When A2 was the sample, B2 and C2 were correct. When A3 was the sample, B3 and C3 were correct. The minimum number of trials to complete the training phase was eighteen. If a participant did not complete training after 60 minutes, training was terminated for that session (training was normally resumed later that day).
Following completion of the equivalence training phases, participants were immediately exposed to a MTS equivalence test (i.e., combined symmetry and transitivity). The test consisted of three MTS tasks involving the B stimuli as samples, and the C stimuli as comparisons (Figure 1). These tasks were presented in a quasi-random order, with each of the three tasks occurring ten times for a total of thirty trials. The mastery criterion was 90% correct responding (i.e., 9 out of 10 responses on each task correct). Because this was a test, no feedback occurred on any trial. Participants were exposed to the equivalence test, and retraining for a maximum of three exposures, until the mastery criterion was reached.
Phase 2: Video Exposure: Following completion of Phase 1, the experimenter entered the experimental room and repositioned the chair to face the television/video unit. The two videos for viewing were placed on the left of the unit. Each videocassette was unmarked and placed within a white dust cover. All of the dust covers were identical to each other in every respect except that each was marked on the outside with a nonsense syllable from the earlier MTS procedure. The video marked QAT (the nonsense syllable designated B1) contained five minutes of humorous material, and the video marked VEK (the nonsense syllable designated B2) contained five minutes of non-humorous material. The participant was invited back into the room and sat down to face the television screen. The experimenter then read aloud the following instructions:
After watching both videos, the participant hailed the experimenter who returned to the room and arranged the next experimental phase.
Phase 3: Video Categorization: Four videocassettes, all identical except for being marked with four of the remaining nonsense syllables (i.e., A1, A2, C1, and C2) were placed in a single pile on the table beside the television with the two videocassettes that had just been viewed. On either side of this pile were placed two white 6" x 4" category cards with the words "Humorous" printed on one, and the words "Non-Humorous" printed on the other. The participant was invited back into the room and was read the following instructions:
When the participant left the room, the experimenter entered and noted the participant's categorization of the six videos on a data sheet. The videos and category labels cards were then removed.
Phase 4: Transfer of Functions: The participant was invited back into the room and the two videos marked C1 and C2 were placed on the table. The experimenter asked the participant "what visual material, humorous or non-humorous, do you think is on these videos?" Participants made their responses to each videocassette by writing 'H' (Humorous) or 'NH' (Non-Humorous) on a data sheet beneath C1 and C2, respectively. Following completion of this phase, participants were thanked for their participation and fully debriefed.
The results for all participants in Condition 1 and Condition 2 are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
In Condition 1, Participants 1-3 received the same experimental sequence as Greyand Barnes (1996). Participant 1 required 120 MTS training trials before successfully reaching the mastery criterion on her first exposure to the equivalence test (i.e., 28 correct responses out of 30). Following exposure to the two videos, this participant categorized A1, B1, and C1 as humorous, and A2, B2, and C2 as nonhumorous, in accordance with the derived equivalence relations. During the transfer of functions test Phase 4, this participant reversed the functions of the unseen videos C1 and C2, as nonhumorous and humorous, respectively. Participants 2 and 3 required 102 trials and 72 trials, respectively before successfully demonstrating the formation of the requisite equivalence relations. Both participants subsequently demonstrated the predicted performance in the video categorization and transfer of functions test phases (see Table 1).
The remaining three participants in Condition 1 were exposed to the transfer of functions test phases in reverse order. That is, they received Phase 4 first, followed by Phase 3. Participants 4-6 required between 60 and 270 MTS training trials before successfully achieving the mastery criterion on the equivalence test. Following exposure to the two videos, all three participants correctly categorized C1 as humorous, C2 as nonhumorous, and categorized the remaining stimuli in accordance with the derived equivalence relations (see Table 1).
In Condition 2, participants were not exposed to a prior MTS equivalence test. Participants 7-9 received the same experimental sequence as Grey and Barnes (1996) but without a prior equivalence test. Participant 7 required 115 MTS training trials and, following exposure to the two videos, categorized A1, B1, and C1 as humorous, and A2, B2, and C2 as nonhumorous, in accordance with the derived equivalence relations. During the transfer of functions test Phase 4, this participant categorized the unseen videos C1 and C2, as humorous and nonhumorous, respectively. Participant 8 required 156 MTS training trials and, following exposure to the two videos, categorized A1, B2, and C2 as Humorous and A2, B1, and C1 as Non-Humorous, respectively, thereby failing to show the predicted transfer performance. In effect, Participant 8 demonstrated a derived transfer of functions in accordance with symmetry relations only by categorizing A1 as Humorous and A2 as Non-Humorous (A1-B1, A2-B2 derives B1-A1, B2-A2). Despite having had direct experience of both of the functions of B1 and B2, this participant reversed the explicitly trained functions during the video categorization test, but refused to continue with the experiment before she could be exposed to Phase 4. Following 114 MTS training trials, and exposure to the two videos, Participant 9 categorized A2, B1, and C2 as Humorous and A1, B2, and C1 as Non-Humorous, thereby failing to show the predicted transfer performance. Although this participant correctly categorized the directly experienced B1 and B2 stimuli, she reversed the functions of the unseen videos A1, C1, A2, and C2. Participant 9, during the transfer of functions test Phase 4, reversed the functions of the unseen videos C1 and C2, as nonhumorous and humorous, respectively, in accordance with derived equivalence relations (see Table 2).
The final three participants were exposed to the transfer of functions test phases in reverse order, but without a prior equivalence test. Participants 10 and 11 required 60 and 246 MTS training trials and, following exposure to the two videos, categorized C1 as Non-Humorous and C2 as Humorous, thereby failing to show the predicted transfer performance. Participant 10 then categorized A1, B2, and C2 as Humorous and A2, B1, and C1 as Non-Humorous, while Participant 11 categorized A2, B2, and C2 as Humorous and A1, B1, and C1 as Non-Humorous, respectively. Both participants, despite having directly observed B1 and B2, reversed these explicitly trained functions during the video categorization test along with C1 and C2. The performances of Participants 10 and 11 differed only with respect to their categorization of A1 and A2, with the latter participant categorizing the unseen videos in a class-consistent manner. Finally, Participant 12 required 102 MTS training trials and, following exposure to the two videos, categorized C1 as Humorous and C2 as Non-Humorous before categorizing the remaining stimuli in accordance with the derived equivalence relations (see Table 2).
The present findings demonstrate a transfer of discriminative stimulus functions (humorous and nonhumorous), both with and without a prior MTS test for equivalence relations, and with the sequence of transfer test phases alternated across participants. Taken together, the findings replicate and extend those of Grey and Barnes (1996). Some of the participants in the present study were exposed to a MTS equivalence test prior to the transfer test phases. Inspection of the data for these participants shows near-perfect correspondence between scores obtained on the equivalence test and performance on the Video Categorization test Phase 3. That is, participants who passed the equivalence test on their first exposure also categorized the six stimuli class-consistently into humorous (A1, B1, C1) and nonhumorous (A2, B2, C2) categories (Table 1), respectively. In this way, the Video Categorization test can be considered a type of stimulus-sorting task often used in research on concept formation (e.g., Rosch & Mervis, 1977) but seldom in research on derived stimulus relations (cf. Green, 1990; Smeets, Dymond, Barnes-Holmes, 2000). The present study provides further support for the finding that, after demonstrating equivalence on a MTS test, most participants also sort stimuli in a class-consistent fashion (e.g., Smeets et al., 2000). Participants who demonstrated equivalence during the MTS test also sorted the stimuli class-consistently, regardless of the test sequence employed. This suggests that, once formed, equivalence relations can remain remarkably stable across time, even when measured in different testing formats.
The remainder of participants in the present study did not receive a MTS equivalence test prior to the transfer test phases. Previous research has shown that the formal demonstration of equivalence relations was not necessary for discriminative (e.g., Barnes & Keenan, 1993) and other (e.g., Dymond & Barnes, 1998) stimulus functions to transfer. Occasionally, however, researchers have found it necessary to expose participants to either symmetry (Hayes et al., 1991) or partial equivalence tests (Wulfert & Hayes, 1988) to facilitate the derived transfer performance. This was not necessary in the present study. However, it could be argued that participants in Condition 2, although they did not receive a formal MTS equivalence test, were in fact required to sort the stimuli in a class-consistent manner during the Video Categorization test phase and thus should have demonstrated equivalence during this test phase. This, however, was not the case for three possible reasons. First, sorting tests have been used in conjunction with other more formal measures of equivalence, such as MTS, but have not been employed independently as a measure of equivalence formation per se. Thus, participants in Condition 2 were trained, but not tested, in a MTS format and later exposed to the sorting task. It is highly likely, therefore, that the different training and testing formats inhibited formation of equivalence in 4 out of 6 of the present participants (see Table 1). Second, as mentioned above, equivalence relations appear to be remarkably stable once formed. However, for stability to be inferred, participants must first demonstrate derivation of the necessary relations along some formal measure, such as MTS. It is possible that no prior exposure to a MTS equivalence test, combined with the cross-contextual features of the sorting task as employed here, inhibited class-consistent responding in the transfer test Phase 3. Thirdly, the sequence of test exposures did not appear to facilitate the derived transfer effect. That is, three out of five participants reversed the humorous and nonhumorous functions during Phase 4 and also failed to sort the stimuli in accordance with the defined classes. In effect, the lack of a prior equivalence test may to some extent have interfered with the subsequent derived performances during the transfer test phases. Future research is needed to examine these issues.
The transfer of functions test in Phase 4 involved a number of unique features. Firstly, the modality of the measured response in the testing phase differed to that which was trained. That is, participants were presented visually with the B1 and B2 stimuli affixed to the two videocassette covers and were subsequently asked what material they thought was on the C1 and C2 videos, but were required to write down 'H' for humor and 'NH' for nonhumor. This differed from the procedure employed by Grey and Barnes (1996) where participants verbally reported the contents of the unseen videos, which the experimenter then noted. Previous research has demonstrated a conditional transfer of functions in which the contextual stimuli differed across training and testing phases (Barnes et al., 1995), yet no published study has shown a transfer effect from the visual to written modalities. Secondly, only one exposure was given to the transfer test phase. Thus, it is highly likely that the predicted performances were largely derived from the trained relations, and were certainly not produced by the repeated training and testing that is often employed in transfer of function studies (see Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000).
It is noteworthy that all participants in Condition 1 demonstrated the emergence of three, three-member equivalence relations within the predetermined mastery criterion by the first or second test exposure. However, the presentation of B-C test trials following A-B and AC training represents only a partial test of combined symmetry and transitivity (equivalence). A more complete test should present C-B trials also; future research should address this issue as a means of establishing the replicability of the present findings.
Overall, the procedures of the present study contribute towards the growing body of literature employing naturalistic stimulus functions. To date, researchers have used sexual (e.g., Grey & Barnes, 1996; Roche et al., 2000), religious (Grey & Barnes, 1996), and physiologically relevant stimulus functions (e.g., Dougher et al., 1994) in the behavioral analysis of emergent behavior. The stimulus functions of humor and nonhumor as employed in the present study were intended to represent the beginnings of an experimental analysis of 'humor'. Humor is a multi-faceted term and one that has received no empirical attention from behavior analysts. However, a brief indication of the potential of modern behavioral procedures and techniques for an understanding of humor was suggested by Hayes and Hayes (1989):
"As a joke we ask a child, "If Ralph is older than Joe, and Joe is bigger than Steve, who is more handsome, Ralph or Steve?" The humor in this statement derives from the tension between the child's training in [equivalence] and the specified absence of relation in this particular instance. If [equivalence] did not usually lead to a specific derived relation, there would be no humor in the question." (pp. 169-170).
In this way, humorous responses are generated when the stimulus functions of events either do not apply (as in the example above) or are derived through arbitrarily related events under a myriad of contextual control. Devising procedures to investigate phenomena such as humor represents a formidable challenge for behavioral researchers and it is hoped that the present study contributes towards this goal.
Authors' Footnote This research was conducted as part of the second author's undergraduate honors thesis, completed under the supervision of the first author while he was at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge. Address correspondence to Simon Dymond, Department of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, United Kingdom (email: email@example.com).
Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91-124.
Barnes, D., Browne, M., Smeets, P., & Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three- to six-year-old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405-430.
Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and non-arbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61-81.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Healy, O., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Relational frame theory and the relational evaluation procedure: Approaching human language as derived relational responding. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 149-180). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., 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, 331-352.
Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1994). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251-267.
Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1997). Behavior-analytic approaches to self-awareness. The Psychological Record, 47, 181-200.
Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1998). The effects of prior equivalence testing and detailed verbal instructions on derived self-discrimination transfer: A follow-up study. The Psychological Record, 48, 147-170.
Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. (2000). Understanding complex behaviour: The transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239-254.
Friman, P. C., Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1998). Why behavior analysts should study emotion: The example of anxiety. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 137-156.
Green, G. (1990). Differences in development of visual and auditory-visual equivalence relations. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 260-270.
Grey, I. M., & Barnes, D. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and attitudes. The Psychological Record, 46, 243-270.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic Press.
Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the listener as a basis for rule-governance. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.) Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control, (pp. 153-190). New York: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119-137.
Rehfeldt, R., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). Untrained temporal differentiation and equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 48, 481-509.
Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned sexual arousal functions in accordance with arbitrary relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275-301.
Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control over the derived transformation of discriminative and sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50, 267-291.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1977). Children's sorting: A reinterpretation based on the nature of abstraction in natural categories. In R. C. Smart & M. S. Smart (Eds.), Reading in child development and relationships (pp. 140-148). New York: Macmillan.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Author's Cooperative.
Smeets, P. M., Dymond, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2000). Instructions, stimulus equivalence, and stimulus sorting: Effects of sequential testing arrangements and a default option. The Psychological Record, 50, 339-354.
Smyth, S., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Forsyth, J.P. (2006). Derived transfer of self-reported arousal functions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 223-246.
Wilson, K. G. & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Why it is crucial to understand thinking and feeling: An analysis and application to drug abuse. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 25-44.
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125-144.
Author Contact Information
Address for correspondence:
Simon Dymond PhD., BCBA, Department of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP
Fax: 01792 295679
Formerly at: Anglia Ruskin University
Cambridge CB1 1PT
Tel: +44 (0) 1245 4931
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. In a moment, the computer will present four nonsense syllables on the screen. You should look at the nonsense syllable at the top and then choose one of three nonsense syllables at the bottom by pressing one of the marked keys on the keyboard. To choose the syllable on the left, press the marked key on the left. To choose the syllable in the middle, press the marked key in the middle. To choose the syllable on the right, press the marked key on the right. If you have any questions, ask them now because the experimenter is not allowed to discuss the experiment with you until after you have completed the entire study.
Here are two videocassettes. After I leave the room I would like you to insert a tape into the video-player and watch the contents. When you have finished watching one video (you will know it is over when the screen goes black), I would like you to remove the videocassette, replace it in its dust-cover, and insert the remaining video, watch it and, when finished, put it back in its cover. Each video is only five minutes long. When you have watched both, please report back to me.
Here are six videocassettes, two of which you have watched. I would like you to place each video into the category 'Humorous' or the category 'Non-Humorous". I will leave the room and when you have completed this task, please leave the room and report to me.
Table 1: showing the number of trials to criterion during A-B and A-C conditional discrimination training for all participants (Condition 1 and 2), and the number of correct responses for B-C equivalence testing for participants from Condition 1 only. Derived Transfer--22 Number of Number of Correct Responses Condition1 Trials to out of Ten during Equivalence Participant Criterion Probe Trials 1 120 B1-C1: 9/10 B2-C2: 9/10 B3-C3: 10/10 2 102 B1-C1: 9/10 B2-C2: 9/10 B3-C3: 9/10 3 72 B1-C1: 10/10 B2-C2: 10/10 B3-C3: 10/10 4 270 B1-C1: 9/10 B2-C2: 10/10 B3-C3: 9/10 5 60 B2-C2: 10/10 B3-C3: 10/10 6 66 B1-C1: 9/10 B2-C2: 9/10 B3-C3: 10/10 Condition 2 7 115 N/A 8 156 N/A 9 114 N/A 10 60 N/A 11 246 N/A 12 102 N/A Table 2: results from the video categorization and transfer of functions testing phases for all participants, shown per Condition. Also shown is the sequence of testing. * refused to continue Derived Transfer--23 Condition 1 Phase 3: Video Categorization Participant Humorous Nonhumorous 1 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2 2 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2 3 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2 Phase 4: Transfer of Functions Test Participant C1 C2 4 Humorous Nonhumorous 5 Humorous Nonhumorous 6 Humorous Nonhumorous Condition 2 Phase 3: Video Categorization Participant Humorous Nonhumorous 7 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2 8 A1/B2/C1 A2/B1/C1 9 A2/B1/C2 A1/B2/C1 Phase 4: Transfer of Functions Test Participant C1 C2 10 Nonhumorous Humorous 11 Nonhumorous Humorous 12 Humorous Nonhumorous Condition 1 Phase 4: Transfer of Functions Test Participant C1 C2 1 Nonhumorous Humorous 2 Humorous Nonhumorous 3 Humorous Nonhumorous Phase 3: Video Categorization Participant Humorous Nonhumorous 4 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2 5 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2 6 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2 Condition 2 Phase 4: Transfer of Functions Test Participant C1 C2 7 Humorous Nonhumorous 8 * * 9 Nonhumorous Humorous Phase 3: Video Categorization Participant Humorous Nonhumorous 10 A1/B2/C2 A2/B1/C1 11 A2/B2/C2 A1/B1/C1 12 A1/B1/C1 A2/B2/C2
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|