Cognitive flexibility and contextual control of stimulus equivalence classes according to the nature of contextual cues

Article Sidebar

PDF (Spanish)
Published: Sep 18, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v10.n2.19459
Keywords:
contextual control, stimulus equivalence classes, arbitrary cues, relational flexibility

Main Article Content

Mariana Arismendi
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Psicología
Alberto Iorio
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Psicología

Abstract

Contextual control of stimuli equivalence classes (SEC) emerges from second order conditional discriminations (CD): in this procedure, a stimulus can belong to different SEC according to the context. This characteristic allows the experimental study of flexible behaviors. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) also assesses cognitive flexibility, though by non-arbitrary criteria. In this study, the performance of 52 participants in a second-order CD task was evaluated, using contextual cues of different nature (arbitrary / verbal), and compared with their performance in the WCST. The results showed that, although verbal keys acquired their contextual function more readily than the arbitrary ones, they did not have a differential impact on the contextual control of SEC. Strong associations between performances in both tasks were observed. The results are discussed in terms of differences in the arbitrariness of the stimuli and the convenience of using rigorous procedures in the evaluation of relational flexibility.

Article Details

How to Cite
Cognitive flexibility and contextual control of stimulus equivalence classes according to the nature of contextual cues. (2018). Argentinean Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v10.n2.19459
Issue
Vol. 10 No. 2 (2018): REVISTA ARGENTINA DE CIENCIAS DEL COMPORTAMIENTO
Section
Original Articles

La RACC aplicará la licencia internacional de atribuciones comunes creativas (Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Bajo esta licencia, se permite cualquier explotación de la obra, incluyendo la explotación con fines comerciales y la creación de obras derivadas, la distribución de las cuales también está permitida sin ninguna restricción. Esta licencia es una licencia libre según la Freedom Defined. La única condición es que siempre y en todos los casos se cite a los autores y a la fuente original de publicación (i.e., RACC). Esta licencia fue desarrollada para facilitar el acceso abierto, gratuito y libre a trabajos originales científicos y artísticos.

Author Biographies

Mariana Arismendi, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Psicología

Doctora en Psicología, de la Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Ayudante de Primera en la asignatura Metodología de la Investigación en la UBA.

Profesora titular de la asignatura Procesos Básicos II de la Universidad del Salvador.

Departamento de Biología del Comportamiento, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Alberto Iorio, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Psicología

Departamento de Biología del Comportamiento, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

How to Cite

Cognitive flexibility and contextual control of stimulus equivalence classes according to the nature of contextual cues. (2018). Argentinean Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v10.n2.19459

References

American Psychological Association (2016). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60(3), 437-462. doi:10.1007/BF03395720

Bortoloti, R., Rodrigues, N. C., Cortez, M. D., Pimentel, N., & de Rose, J. C. (2013). Overtraining increases the strength of equivalence relations. Psychology & Neuroscience, 6(3), 357-364. doi: 10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.13

Burin, D., Drake, M., & Harris, P. (2007). Evaluación neuropsicológica en adultos. Bs. As: Paidós SAICF.

Delgado, D., & Hayes, L. (2007). The acquisition of a conceptual repertoire: An analysis in terms of substitution of functions. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(3), 59-68. doi: 10.1037/h0100622

Dymond, S. (2014). Meaning is more than associations: relational operants and the search for derived relations in nonhumans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101(1), 152-155. doi: 10.1002/jeab.57

Hayes, S. C., & Long, D. M. (2013). Contextual Behavioral Science, evolution, and scientific epistemology. En S. Dymond, & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in Relational Frame Theory. Research & Application. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A précis. En S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 141-154). New York: Plenum Press.

Hayes, S. C., White, D., & Bissett, R. T. (1998). Protocol analysis and the “silent dog” method of analyzing the impact of self-generated rules. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 57–63. doi: 10.1007/BF03392923

Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(2), 207-227. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-207

Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin card sorting test manual: Revised and expanded. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.

Jurado, M. B., & Rosselli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: a review of our current understanding. Neuropsychology Review, 17(3), 213–233. doi: 10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z

Lionello-DeNolf, K. M. (2012). Learning of stimulus equivalence classes. En N. M. Seel (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1955-1957). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & Dube, W. V. (2011). Contextual influences on resistance to disruption in children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96(3), 317-327. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2011.96-317

Mensah, J., & Arntzen, E. (2016). Effects of meaningful stimuli contained in different numbers of classes on equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 67(3), 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s40732-016-0215-y

Mizael, T. M., de Almeida, J. H., Silveira, C. C., & de Rose, J. C. (2016). Changing racial bias by transfer of function in equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 66(3), 451-462. doi: 10.1007/s40732-016-0185-0

Pérez, W. F., Fidalgo, A. P., Kovac, R., & Nico, Y. C. (2015). The transfer of Cfunc contextual control through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103(3), 511-523. doi: 10.1002/jeab.150

Randell, T., & Remington, B. (2006). Equivalence Relations, Contextual Control, and Naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86(3), 337–354. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.82-05

Rehfeldt, R. A. (2003). Establishing contextual control over generalized equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 53(3), 415-428.

Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. En T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127

Stewart, I., Barrett, K., McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, D., & O’Hora, D. (2013). Multiple contextual control over non-arbitrary relational responding and a preliminary model of pragmatic verbal analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 100(2), 174–186.

doi: 10.1002/jeab.39