Abstract
Stimulus equivalence (SE) is demonstrated when participants exposed to conditional discrimination training pass tests for reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence (symmetry combined with transitivity). Most theorists attribute the origin of SE to operant processes, but some argue that it results from Pavlovian conditioning. Symmetry is problematic for the latter hypothesis because it seems to require excitatory backward conditioning. However, equivalence tests resemble backward sensory preconditioning (BSP) and backward second-order conditioning (BSOC), two well-established processes. A review of associationistic theories of BSP and BSOC showed that the temporal coding hypothesis (TCH) explains outcomes that other associationistic theories cannot explain (i.e., BSOC and BSP effects after first-order conditioning with delay vs. trace conditioning and forward vs. backward conditioning). The TCH assumes that organisms encode the temporal attributes of stimulus events (e.g., order and interval duration) and this temporal information is integrated across separate phases of training. The TCH seems compatible with a behavioral analysis if direct stimulus control replaces the notion of temporal maps. The TCH perspective does not seem applicable to SE because SE tests are not predictive tasks. This suggests that SE is fundamentally different from BSP and BSOC and a Pavlovian conditioning analysis of SE is inadequate. This conclusion is consistent with previous criticism of a Pavlovian account of SE according to which Pavlovian conditioning cannot be interpreted as stimulus substitution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Notes
This type of conditioning is most commonly referred to as respondent conditioning in the behavior analytic literature. However, the term respondent suggests that the responses involved are almost exclusively responses from smooth muscles and glands (see below). Therefore, the term Pavlovian is preferred here as it typically does not have such connotations.
Notice that participants had been trained to respond to both elements of AB color/tone compounds. That training probably encouraged participants to observe both elements of AF tone/color compounds.
According to Rehfeldt and Hayes (1998, p. 200), this analysis can also be applied to the tests presented in a linear series structure of training and testing.
Tonneau (2001a, p. 13) used similar schematic representations of higher-order conditioning and equivalence tests. However, such representations do not capture essential aspects of higher order conditioning as discussed below. The similarity of these conditioning processes and stimulus equivalence is just superficial.
From a behavior analytic perspective, the stimulus representations, associations, cognitive maps, etc., from associationistic theories are hypothetical constructs and explanatory fictions (e.g., Cooper et al., 2020, pp. 12–13). The experiments below could be described unaccompanied by such theories, but the theories provide the context for understanding why the experiments were performed and inform us about the views of backward higher order conditioning that leaders in the field where these processes were investigated have. Moreover, a behavioral interpretation of such views is possible (see below).
S2 probably elicited a CR due to forward second-order conditioning mediated by the context (e.g., Chang et al., 2003)
The effect of temporal relations between events on conditioning outcomes has long being recognized. Examples are studies on delay, trace, and temporal conditioning, fixed-time interval schedules, and on discrimination learning of past stimulus durations. Sophisticated behavioral and cognitive models of timing have been proposed to explain such outcomes (e.g., see Machado et al., 2022, for a review). Arcediano and Miller (2002, pp. 116–120) discussed what they considered a constraint of such models: their assumption that all intervals are timed using some stimulus that acts as time marker towards the latter event that terminates the interval. According to Arcediano and Miller (2002, p. 118), explaining the results of some studies on BSOC and BSP requires the assumption that participants also have the capacity to time intervals in a backward fashion. Such theoretical discussions of timing are, however, beyond the scope of this article.
References
Alonso-Alvarez, B. (2023). The problem of class breakdown in Sidman’s (1994, 2000) theory about the origin of stimulus equivalence. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 46, 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00365-2
Arcediano, F., Escobar, M., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Temporal integration and temporal backward associations in human and nonhuman subjects. Animal Learning & Behavior, 31, 242–256. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195986
Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (2002). Some constraints for models of timing: A temporal coding hypothesis perspective. Learning & Motivation, 33(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1006/lmot.2001.1102
Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Roche, B. (2001). The (not so) strange death of stimulus equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2001.11434166
Barnet, R. C., Cole, R. P., & Miller, R. R. (1997). Temporal integration in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 25(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199061
Barnet, R. C., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Second-order excitation mediated by a backward conditioned inhibitor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 22(3) 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1037//0097-7403.22.3.279
Boelens, H. (1994). A traditional account of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 44(4), 587–605.
Bruce, K., Dyer, K., Phasukkan, T., & Galizio, M. (2022). Two directions in a search for symmetry in rats. The Psychological Record, 72(3), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00490-x
Catania, A. C. (2001). The roles of responses and stimuli in functional equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2001.11434168
Chang, R. C., Blaisdell, A. P., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Backward conditioning: Mediation by the context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.29.3.171
Chartier, T. F., & Fagot, J. (2022). Simultaneous learning of directional and non-directional stimulus relations in baboons (Papio papio). Learning & Behavior, 51, 166–178. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-022-00522-8
Clayton, M. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1999). Conceptual differences in the analysis of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 49, 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395312
Cole, R. P., Barnet, R. C., & Miller, R. R. (1995). Temporal encoding in trace conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 23(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199929
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Critchfield, T. S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Dougher, M. J. (2018). Editorial: What Sidman did—Historical and contemporary significance of research on derived stimulus relations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0154-9
Delgado, D., & Hayes, L. J. (2014). An integrative approach to learning processes: Revisiting substitution of functions. The Psychological Record, 64(3), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0071-6
Delgado, D., & Rodríguez, A. (2022). Stimulus equivalence using a respondent matching-to-sample procedure with verification trials. The Psychological Record, 72(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00438-7
Domjan, M. (2016). Elicited versus emitted behavior: Time to abandon the distinction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.197
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(3), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331
Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1987). Stimulus class membership established via stimulus-reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.47-159
Hall, G. (1996). Learning about associatively activated stimulus representations: Implications for acquired equivalence and perceptual learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 24, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198973
Hayes, L. J. (1992). Equivalence as processes. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 97–108). Context Press.
Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19–40). Context Press.
Hollis, K. L. (1997). Contemporary research on Pavlovian conditioning: A “new” functional analysis. American Psychologist, 52(9), 956–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.9.956
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65(1), 185–241. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185
Imai, M., Murai, C., Miyazaki, M., Okada, H., & Tomonaga, M. (2021). The contingency symmetry bias (affirming the consequent fallacy) as a prerequisite for word learning: A comparative study of pre-linguistic human infants and chimpanzees. Cognition, 214, 104755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104755
Leader, G., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1996). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 46(4), 685–706.
Lee, J. C. (2021). Second-order conditioning in humans. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 672628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.672628
Machado, A., Carvalho, M. P., & Vasconcelos, M. (2022). Time to contrast models of timing: The structure of temporal memory. Behavioral Neuroscience, 136(5), 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/bne0000521
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning. Academic Press.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82(4), 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076778
Minster, S. T., Elliffe, D., & Muthukumaraswamy, S. D. (2011). Emergent stimulus relations depend on stimulus correlation and not on reinforcement contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.95-327
Navarro, V. M., & Wasserman, E. A. (2020). Bidirectional conditioning: Revisiting Asratyan's “alternating” training technique. Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, 171, 107211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2020.107211
Pear, J. J., & Eldridge, G. D. (1984). The operant–respondent distinction: Future directions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42(3), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1984.42-453
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87(6), 532–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532
Pilgrim, C. (2020). Equivalence-based instruction. In J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, & W. L. Heward (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.), pp. 442–496). Pearson.
Place, U. T. (1995/1996). Symbolic processes and stimulus equivalence. Behavior & Philosophy, 23/24, 13–30.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rehfeldt, R. A., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). The operant-respondent distinction revisited: Toward an understanding of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 48(2), 187–210.
Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Time as content in Pavlovian conditioning. Behavioural Processes 44(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(98)00046-1
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213-245). Erlbaum.
Sidman, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behavior analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93-114). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5
Spetch, M. L., Wilkie, D. M., & Pinel, J. P. (1981). Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.163
Stemmer, N. (2001). Pavlovian correlations and action frames. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(1), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2001.11434184
Stromer, R., & Stromer, J. B. (1990). The formation of arbitrary stimulus classes in matching to complex samples. The Psychological Record, 40(1), 51–66.
Tonneau, F. (2001a). Equivalence relations: A critical analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2001.11434165
Tonneau, F. (2001b). Equivalence relations: A reply. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2001.11434185
Tonneau, F., & Gonzalez, C. (2004). Function transfer in human operant experiments: The role of stimulus pairings. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2004.81-239
Ward-Robinson, J., & Hall, G. (1996). Backward sensory preconditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22(4), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.22.4.395
Ward-Robinson, J., & Hall, G. (1998). Backward sensory preconditioning when reinforcement is delayed. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 51B(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/713932687
Wilkinson, K. M., & McIlvane, W. J. (2001). Methods for studying symbolic behavior and category formation: Contributions of stimulus equivalence research. Developmental Review, 21(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.2000.0526
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
I have no know conflict of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Alonso-Alvarez, B. A Review of Backward Higher-Order Conditioning: Implications for a Pavlovian Conditioning Analysis of Stimulus Equivalence. Perspect Behav Sci 46, 493–514 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00385-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00385-y