|
Sexual categorisation and
relation frame learning: Effects of procedural differences. Relationalframe theory treats stimulus equivalence as only one example of the learning of arbitrarily applicable relationships. Several of our previous experiments attempted to replicate an earlier finding that, following training to establish the relational functions of SAME, OPPOSITE and DIFFERENT in arbitrary stimuli, 'penis' was categorised as the same as 'dominate' and as opposite to 'submit’, while with 'vagina' these categorisations were reversed. Furthermore, these categorisations transferred to other, previously meaningless, stimuli following matching-to-sample training. In our previous experiments, some participants have produced the predicted performance across all the various tasks, but others have failed to do so. In the experiment presented here, the matching-to-sample training was altered. Participants were trained, in the presence of the contextual cues for SAME, DIFFERENT and OPPOSITE, to relate the words ‘submit’, ‘forget’ and ‘dominate’ respectively to nonsense syllables; whereas in previous experiments ‘dominate’ was trained in the presence of ‘same’, and submit in the presence of ‘opposite’. In a subsequent relational responding test, participants were assessed in the presence of the contextual cues for SAME, DIFFERENT and OPPOSITE for categorisation of ‘penis’ and ‘vagina’. Implications for the conditions under which pre-existing categorisations will transfer to additional stimuli are discussed. Keywords: relationalframe theory, sexual categorisation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|