Assig 2

module9.docx

Module 9 Introduction

Readings:

1. Cooper et al. Chapter 19

Topics:

1. Introduction to the course

2. Equivalence-based instruction

Module 9 Lesson

We start this course with a topic many seasoned behavior analysts find a bit daunting - mostly because of the newer vocabulary terms not common in ABA yet. Chapter 19 in the Cooper text is quite long and packed with a lot of information - but do not panic. We will take time to highlight the most important features and you can continue to revisit the topic as you become more familiar with its content. The second part of the chapter also relates to implementation - so do not feel defeated if you are still struggling with the concept portion of stimulus equivalence.

First, a little history . . .

Stimulus Equivalence

Sidman (1971) conducted a landmark study using the common matching-to-sample procedure. Matching-to-sample is a discrete trial procedure in which the participant makes a response that presents or reveals a sample stimulus. Next, with or without the original stimulus, two or more comparison stimuli are presented. The participant then selects one of the comparison stimuli. If it matches the sample stimulus, the response is reinforced. Here is a most simple, non-arbitrary example - would you be able to match-to-sample? In other words, would you be able to take the image that is by itself ( the sample stimulus) and match it to the same one in the array of three ( the comparison stimulus)

Here we see what is known as reflexivity. Reflexivity is a type of stimuli-to-stimulus relation in which the learner - without any prior or training or reinforcement - selects a stimulus that is the same as the sample stimulus. In math, we would simply say A = A.

Of course, most when it comes to language and most samples, things do not physically look, feel, or sound the same - but they are equivalent to the sample. The same can take many different forms. Let us look at this sample:

Here we see an image of a Cat (A), an image representing the spoken word “Cat” (B), and an image of the written word C-A-T (C).

Since we already know about reflexivity, we can expand our mathematical representation to each of these stimuli: A=A, B=B, and C=C. In other words, we recognize that if provided two identical pictures of the image of the cat, we would say they were the “same”. And so on with the written and spoken word “cat”.

Now - we can teach that the image of the black cat (the sample stimulus) is the same as hearing the spoken word “cat” (comparison stimulus). Once we make this assertion, we can say that A (the image of the cat) is equivalent to B (the spoken word “cat”). Using our mathematical model again, we can assert that A = B. BUT - this has an exciting property - hold onto your hats - it is called symmetry. We can also say that B = A. It is reversible! We do not have to teach this separately!! Symmetry is a type of stimuli-to-stimulus relation in which the learner - without any prior or training or reinforcement - demonstrates the reversibility of the sample stimulus and the comparison stimulus. So, not only does an image of a cat mean the same as the spoken word “cat” - the spoken word “cat” means the same as the image of the cat! Wow!

Not excited? Perhaps that is understandable. You want more excitement for your investment.

Lucky for you, we can also demonstrate transitivity.

Once we know that A = B, we can toss in another stimulus - C. The thing is - as Sidman discovered in the 1970’s - you do not have to directly teach the relationship between A and C or B and C or C and A and on and on. It is endless. Transitivity describes the stimulus-stimulus relations that emerge as a product of training two other stimulus-stimulus relations. Freebie in teaching! Just imagine the implications if all of education adopted a more economic way of learning.

When we test for all three of these properties - we can say there is stimulus equivalence.

Stimulus equivalence describes a behavior analytic approach to understanding and establishing symbolic function. This discovery is significant because:

· Many relations are generated after teaching only a small number of relations.

· The defining criteria for equivalence provide a compelling operational definition of symbolic function and make it possible to analyze complex human repertoires.

What if we added a “D” to the mix by teaching “A cat says meow!”? Guess how many more free relations we get?!?

The “exponential”, if you will, progress demonstrates what we know as generativity. G enerativity means that we can create and understand an infinite number of meaningful relations.

Stimulus equivalence has contributed to application by the following concepts:

· Class formation

· Delayed emergence

· Class expansion

· Class merger

· Transfer of function

· Contextual control

Relational Frame Theory (RFT)

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is an expansion of Sidman’s Stimulus Equivalence and aligns with a behaviorist analysis of language. Look at the following concept map from FoxyLearning.com:

Relational Frame Theory concept map – accessible version.docx Download Relational Frame Theory concept map – accessible version.docx

Functional Contextualism

It is recommended that you read the concept map out loud - moving through each area. If is ok if you do not know what all the terms mean; rather, you are practicing the verbal behavior behind to explanation of RFT. You may notice the first box indicates a "theory". Applied behavior analysis does not discuss theories when articulating the science, but it is not harmful to explore some of these philosophical derivatives. You do not have to understand much about functional contextualism for the certification exam, but if you are interested in pursuing more information on the topic, it is helpful to be able to summarize its key features.

Purpose of Functional Contextualism

· Predict and Influence psychological events (aka operants)

· Includes observable behaviors and private events

Method:

· Focus on manipulable variables ( things we can change or modify) in the context of psychological events

· Context can be environment and setting, or learning history

· Cannot change someone else’s psychological events – but can change the context that influences the event!

To make you feel a little more comfortable with clinical practice that is influenced by functional contextualism, consider the following two examples from clinicians. Which one would be using functional contextualism and which one would be using some other mentalistic, therapeutic approach? The correct answer will seem in line with ABA. Read the following:

Psychologist A: Ezekiel shared that he is very depressed - often feeling sad and does not want to get out of bed. The psychologist decides that the depression is due to Ezekiel’s low self esteem in social situations and rehearses appropriate self affirmations with him.

Psychologist B: Ezekiel shared that he is very depressed - often feeling sad and does not want to get out of bed. The psychologist decides he should plan one quick activity outside of the home each morning that he enjoys, gradually increasing the duration and number of activities each day.

Stimulus Relations

Next on the concept map is something we may be able to determine from what we have learned so far - that RFT was derived from the concept of stimulus relations.

A derived stimulus relation is a relation between two or more stimuli that is not directly trained or taught and is not based solely on the physical properties of the stimuli. “Physical properties” just means the way a stimulus looks, sounds, smells, feels, or tastes.

This is where RFT pulls back in the concept of stimulus equivalence.

And we have done these kinds of exercises as children without even know it. Here is an example from FoxyLearning:

Let us say that Ross is slower than Joey, and that Chandler is faster than Joey. Who do you think would win a race between these three people?

If you said Chandler would probably win the race, you are correct!. But how did you know that? You weren’t told that Chandler was faster than both Ross and Joey, and you haven’t observed him running faster. You were only told that Ross is slower than Joey and that Chandler is faster than Joey. You weren’t told anything about Chandler’s speed compared to Ross’s speed, and you haven’t seen any of them actually run a race.

You derived the relation that Chandler is also faster than Ross (and would thus win the race). We call this a derived stimulus relation because it was not directly taught, and it is not based solely on the physical properties of the stimuli.

We are capable of an unfathomable number of derived relations - based on a very small number of directly training stimulus relations! This is why these concepts make a great model for understanding the symbolism and generativity of language.

One last term before we pause until next week. A relational frame is a particular type of responding. It is actually more accurate to speak of framing relationally or relational framing. A relational frame, or framing relationally, is more like playing Bach on the cello than it is picking up the cello to play. We will discuss more in the next module.

Unlocking Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx Download Unlocking Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx

Rogue ABA Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx Download Rogue ABA Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx

module9.docx

Module 9 Introduction

Readings:

1. Cooper et al. Chapter 19

Topics:

1. Introduction to the course

2. Equivalence-based instruction

Module 9 Lesson

We start this course with a topic many seasoned behavior analysts find a bit daunting - mostly because of the newer vocabulary terms not common in ABA yet. Chapter 19 in the Cooper text is quite long and packed with a lot of information - but do not panic. We will take time to highlight the most important features and you can continue to revisit the topic as you become more familiar with its content. The second part of the chapter also relates to implementation - so do not feel defeated if you are still struggling with the concept portion of stimulus equivalence.

First, a little history . . .

Stimulus Equivalence

Sidman (1971) conducted a landmark study using the common matching-to-sample procedure. Matching-to-sample is a discrete trial procedure in which the participant makes a response that presents or reveals a sample stimulus. Next, with or without the original stimulus, two or more comparison stimuli are presented. The participant then selects one of the comparison stimuli. If it matches the sample stimulus, the response is reinforced. Here is a most simple, non-arbitrary example - would you be able to match-to-sample? In other words, would you be able to take the image that is by itself ( the sample stimulus) and match it to the same one in the array of three ( the comparison stimulus)

Here we see what is known as reflexivity. Reflexivity is a type of stimuli-to-stimulus relation in which the learner - without any prior or training or reinforcement - selects a stimulus that is the same as the sample stimulus. In math, we would simply say A = A.

Of course, most when it comes to language and most samples, things do not physically look, feel, or sound the same - but they are equivalent to the sample. The same can take many different forms. Let us look at this sample:

Here we see an image of a Cat (A), an image representing the spoken word “Cat” (B), and an image of the written word C-A-T (C).

Since we already know about reflexivity, we can expand our mathematical representation to each of these stimuli: A=A, B=B, and C=C. In other words, we recognize that if provided two identical pictures of the image of the cat, we would say they were the “same”. And so on with the written and spoken word “cat”.

Now - we can teach that the image of the black cat (the sample stimulus) is the same as hearing the spoken word “cat” (comparison stimulus). Once we make this assertion, we can say that A (the image of the cat) is equivalent to B (the spoken word “cat”). Using our mathematical model again, we can assert that A = B. BUT - this has an exciting property - hold onto your hats - it is called symmetry. We can also say that B = A. It is reversible! We do not have to teach this separately!! Symmetry is a type of stimuli-to-stimulus relation in which the learner - without any prior or training or reinforcement - demonstrates the reversibility of the sample stimulus and the comparison stimulus. So, not only does an image of a cat mean the same as the spoken word “cat” - the spoken word “cat” means the same as the image of the cat! Wow!

Not excited? Perhaps that is understandable. You want more excitement for your investment.

Lucky for you, we can also demonstrate transitivity.

Once we know that A = B, we can toss in another stimulus - C. The thing is - as Sidman discovered in the 1970’s - you do not have to directly teach the relationship between A and C or B and C or C and A and on and on. It is endless. Transitivity describes the stimulus-stimulus relations that emerge as a product of training two other stimulus-stimulus relations. Freebie in teaching! Just imagine the implications if all of education adopted a more economic way of learning.

When we test for all three of these properties - we can say there is stimulus equivalence.

Stimulus equivalence describes a behavior analytic approach to understanding and establishing symbolic function. This discovery is significant because:

· Many relations are generated after teaching only a small number of relations.

· The defining criteria for equivalence provide a compelling operational definition of symbolic function and make it possible to analyze complex human repertoires.

What if we added a “D” to the mix by teaching “A cat says meow!”? Guess how many more free relations we get?!?

The “exponential”, if you will, progress demonstrates what we know as generativity. G enerativity means that we can create and understand an infinite number of meaningful relations.

Stimulus equivalence has contributed to application by the following concepts:

· Class formation

· Delayed emergence

· Class expansion

· Class merger

· Transfer of function

· Contextual control

Relational Frame Theory (RFT)

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is an expansion of Sidman’s Stimulus Equivalence and aligns with a behaviorist analysis of language. Look at the following concept map from FoxyLearning.com:

Relational Frame Theory concept map – accessible version.docx Download Relational Frame Theory concept map – accessible version.docx

Functional Contextualism

It is recommended that you read the concept map out loud - moving through each area. If is ok if you do not know what all the terms mean; rather, you are practicing the verbal behavior behind to explanation of RFT. You may notice the first box indicates a "theory". Applied behavior analysis does not discuss theories when articulating the science, but it is not harmful to explore some of these philosophical derivatives. You do not have to understand much about functional contextualism for the certification exam, but if you are interested in pursuing more information on the topic, it is helpful to be able to summarize its key features.

Purpose of Functional Contextualism

· Predict and Influence psychological events (aka operants)

· Includes observable behaviors and private events

Method:

· Focus on manipulable variables ( things we can change or modify) in the context of psychological events

· Context can be environment and setting, or learning history

· Cannot change someone else’s psychological events – but can change the context that influences the event!

To make you feel a little more comfortable with clinical practice that is influenced by functional contextualism, consider the following two examples from clinicians. Which one would be using functional contextualism and which one would be using some other mentalistic, therapeutic approach? The correct answer will seem in line with ABA. Read the following:

Psychologist A: Ezekiel shared that he is very depressed - often feeling sad and does not want to get out of bed. The psychologist decides that the depression is due to Ezekiel’s low self esteem in social situations and rehearses appropriate self affirmations with him.

Psychologist B: Ezekiel shared that he is very depressed - often feeling sad and does not want to get out of bed. The psychologist decides he should plan one quick activity outside of the home each morning that he enjoys, gradually increasing the duration and number of activities each day.

Stimulus Relations

Next on the concept map is something we may be able to determine from what we have learned so far - that RFT was derived from the concept of stimulus relations.

A derived stimulus relation is a relation between two or more stimuli that is not directly trained or taught and is not based solely on the physical properties of the stimuli. “Physical properties” just means the way a stimulus looks, sounds, smells, feels, or tastes.

This is where RFT pulls back in the concept of stimulus equivalence.

And we have done these kinds of exercises as children without even know it. Here is an example from FoxyLearning:

Let us say that Ross is slower than Joey, and that Chandler is faster than Joey. Who do you think would win a race between these three people?

If you said Chandler would probably win the race, you are correct!. But how did you know that? You weren’t told that Chandler was faster than both Ross and Joey, and you haven’t observed him running faster. You were only told that Ross is slower than Joey and that Chandler is faster than Joey. You weren’t told anything about Chandler’s speed compared to Ross’s speed, and you haven’t seen any of them actually run a race.

You derived the relation that Chandler is also faster than Ross (and would thus win the race). We call this a derived stimulus relation because it was not directly taught, and it is not based solely on the physical properties of the stimuli.

We are capable of an unfathomable number of derived relations - based on a very small number of directly training stimulus relations! This is why these concepts make a great model for understanding the symbolism and generativity of language.

One last term before we pause until next week. A relational frame is a particular type of responding. It is actually more accurate to speak of framing relationally or relational framing. A relational frame, or framing relationally, is more like playing Bach on the cello than it is picking up the cello to play. We will discuss more in the next module.

Unlocking Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx Download Unlocking Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx

Rogue ABA Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx Download Rogue ABA Stimulus Equivalence – accessible version.docx

module9.docx

module9.docx

module9.docx

module9.docx

Applied Sciences Assignment #2 (Module 9)

Applied Sciences Assignments