Transfer of aversive respondent elicitation in accordance with equivalence relations

Abstract

The present study investigates the transfer of aversively conditioned respondent elicitation through equivalence classes, using skin conductance as the measure of conditioning. The first experiment is an attempt to replicate Experiment 1 in Dougher, Augustson, Markham, Greenway, and Wulfert (1994), with different temporal parameters in the aversive conditioning procedure employed. Match-to-sample procedures were used to teach 17 participants two 4-member equivalence classes. Then, one member of one class was paired with electric shock and one member of the other class was presented without shock. The remaining stimuli from each class were presented in transfer tests. Unlike the findings in the original study, transfer of conditioning was not achieved. In Experiment 2, similar procedures were used with 30 participants, although several modifications were introduced (formation of five-member classes, direct conditioning with several elements of each class, random sequences of stimulus presentation in transfer tests, reversal in aversive conditioning contingencies). More than 80% of participants who had shown differential conditioning also showed the transfer of function effect. Moreover, this effect was replicated within subjects for 3 participants. This is the first demonstration of the transfer of aversive respondent elicitation through stimulus equivalence classes with the presentation of transfer test trials in random order. The latter prevents the possibility that transfer effects are an artefact of transfer test presentation order.

Keywords: aversive conditioning; derived stimulus relations; fear; humans; skin conductance; stimulus equivalence; transfer and transformation of function.

Fig 1

Abstract shapes used as arbitrary stimuli for the formation of equivalence classes in Experiments 1 and 2. The 12 shapes above the horizontal line were used in Experiment 1. All 15 shapes were used in Experiment 2.

Fig 2

Schematic depiction of the phases in Experiment 1.

Fig 3

Experiment 1. Aversive conditioning and transfer of function results (anticipatory SCR) for S7 (upper graph), S5 (middle graph), and S16 (lower graph). Trials 1–12 pertain to Phase 2 (conditioning acquisition, B1 and B2). Trials 13–19 pertain to Phase 3 (13–14, conditioning reminders with B1 and B2; 15–18, transfer probe trials with C1, D1, C2, and D2; 19, final probe trial with B1).

Fig 4

Schematic depiction of the phases of Experiment 2.

Fig 5

Experiment 2. Aversive conditioning and transfer of function results (anticipatory SCRs) for S28 (upper graph) and S30 (lower graph). Transfer tests are the first four-trial blocks in Phases 3 and 5, respectively.

Fig 6

Experiment 2. Aversive conditioning and transfer of function results (anticipatory SCRs) for S1 (upper graph) and S27 (lower graph). Transfer tests are the first four-trial blocks in Phases 3 and 5, respectively.

Fig 7

Experiment 2. Aversive conditioning and transfer of function results (anticipatory SCRs) for S23 (upper graph) and S16 (lower graph). Transfer tests are the first four-trial blocks in Phases 3 and 5, respectively.

Fig 8

Experiment 2. Aversive conditioning and transfer of function results. Averaged anticipatory SCRs (error bars show SEM) for all participants reaching the conditioning criterion in Phase 2. Transfer tests are trials 7 and 8 (Phase 3) and trials 19 and 20 (Phase 5). Participants S19 and S24 did not undergo Phases 4 and 5 (see Table 5). Accordingly, for Phases 2 and 3, N  =  17, and for Phases 4 and 5, N  =  15.