Do contingency‐conflicting elements drop out of equivalence classes? Retesting Sidman's (2000) theory

Sidman's (2000) theory of stimulus equivalence states that all positive elements in a reinforcement contingency enter an equivalence class. The theory also states that if an element from an equivalence class conflicts with a reinforcement contingency, the conflicting element will “drop out” of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 2023-09, Vol.120 (2), p.241-252
Main Authors: Silguero, Russell, Vaidya, Manish
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Contingency
differential outcomes effect
emergent relations
Reinforcement
stimulus equivalence
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Sidman's (2000) theory of stimulus equivalence states that all positive elements in a reinforcement contingency enter an equivalence class. The theory also states that if an element from an equivalence class conflicts with a reinforcement contingency, the conflicting element will “drop out” of the class. Minster et al. (2006) found evidence that a conflicting reinforcer does not drop out of an equivalence class. To explain their results, they proposed that the reinforcer enters the class via pairing after conditional relations have been established, and when there is a conflict between the class and the contingencies, conditionally related elements that have a longer history in the class and that were brought in via reinforcement will exert stronger control. In the current study, stimulus‐reinforcer relations were established before conditional relations to assess the role of developmental order of stimulus relations on conditional‐discrimination performance. The results replicate the findings of Minster et al. (2006) but suggest that developmental order may not be an important factor contributing to maintained accuracy on baseline conditional relations. An interpretation of “dropping out” in terms of differentiated subclasses is discussed. The relevance of the results to the phenomenon known as the differential outcomes effect is also discussed.
ISSN:0022-5002
1938-3711
DOI:10.1002/jeab.853