PII:SO0057916(97)00008-6 rloo5-7’) ,h/97 5 I7 00 + 0 ,x1

THE TRANSFER OF AVOIDANCE EVOKING FUNCTIONS

THROUGH STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE CLASSES

ERIK M. AUGUSTSON* and MICHAEL J. DOUGHER?

*University of Alabama at Birmingham. Birmingham, U.S.A.
tuniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, U.S.A.

Summary - Recent research in the area of stimulus equivalence suggests that transfer of
function via members of stimulus equivalence classes may have relevance to human
emotional responding and the development and generalization of certain psychological
disorders. This study investigated the transfer of avoidance evoking functions through
equivalence classes. Eight subjects were trained in the necessary relations for two-four
member stimulus equivalence classes to emerge. Next, using an on-baseline classical
conditioning procedure, one member of one class was paired with shock while one
member of the other class was presented without shock. Then, while subjects engaged a
key-press task, a differential, signalled avoidance task was introduced wherein shock was
avoided if a response occurred to the stimulus previously associated with shock. The
remaining stimuli from both classes were then presented. The behavior of all eight
subjects showed the differential transfer of the avoidance evoking function. The clinical
and theoretical implications of the results are discussed. ‘? 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

A wide variety of theories have been put forward to account for the acquisition, maintenance,
and generalization of anxiety responses (e.g., Antony & Barlow, 1996; Bond & Siddle, 1996;
Clark, 1988; Davey, 1992; Davey & Matchett, 1994; Deitz, 1982; Eysenck, 1976; Eysenck,
1979; Eysenck, 1985; Levis, 1985; Margraf & Ehlers, 1989; Marks, 1966; Marks, 1987;
McNally, 1987; McNally, 1990; Menzies & Clarke, 1995; Mineka, 1979; Mineka, 1985; Rapee,
1996; Ohman, Dimberg, & Ost, 1985; Rachman, 1976; Rachman, 1977; Reiss, 1980; Reiss,
1991; Reiss & McNally, 1985; Seligman, 1971; Seligman & Johnston, 1973; Siddle & Bond,
1988). Yet despite an extensive research and clinical literature, there remain significant gaps in
our understanding of anxiety and anxiety related disorders and a complex debate, which is
beyond the scope of this paper to address, is ongoing regarding the factors and mechanisms
involved. In particular, the relative roles of classical conditioning and cognitions continues to
be controversial (see Barlow, 1988; Beck & Emery, 1985; Davey, 1992; Delprato & McGlynn,
1984; McNally, 1987; McNally, 1990; Menzies & Clarke, 1995; Wolpe, 1989; Wolpe. 1993).
Research from the area of stimulus equivalence may be helpful in attempting to provide a
more complete account of anxiety disorders which can encompass both the behavioral and
cognitive components of anxiety. Specifically, research on the transfer of stimulus functions via
equivalence classes may be relevant to situations in which previously unencountered stimuli or

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Erik Augustson, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Psychology
Service, 530 Spain Rehabilitation Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical School, 1717 Sixth
Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35233.7330, U.S.A. E-mail: august@sun.rehabm.uab.edu.
182 ERIK M. AUGUSTSON and MICHAEL J. DOUGHER

Fundamental Relations of Stimulus

Equivalence

Trained

A 1 -----.~ B 1 A 2 ------~ B 2

A 1 -'-'~'- C 1 A2 re'C2

Emergent

A 1 -~---- B 1 A 2 -,,i--- B 2

A I -~,---- C 1 A 2 .,,~---- C 2

Symmetry

B 1 ------~ C 1 B 2 ------~- C 2
B 1 -'~---- C 1 B2 9 C2

Transitivity

Figure 1. Fundamental relations which are said to define stimulus equivalence.

stimuli which have never been directly associated with aversive events come to elicit emotional
responding.
Briefly, stimulus equivalence is a phenomenon defined by the emergence of a specific set of
untrained mathematically defined stimulus relations; reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity
(see Fields & Verhave, 1987; Sidman, 1994; Sidman & Tailby, 1982). It has been demonstrated
that, with human subjects, following the training of baseline stimulus relations in a match to
sample paradigm, a variety of untrained relations may emerge (See Figure 1). Reflexivity refers
to generalized identity matching; e.g., A-A, B-B, C-C. After the relations A-B and A-C are
trained, symmetry is said to occur if the conditional relation between the sample and
comparison stimuli is reversible, that is when B is presented as a sample and the appropriate A
stimulus is selected; e.g., B-A, C-A. Transitive relations are demonstrated by responding
correctly on trials in which the samples and comparisons have previously been related only
through a third stimulus; e.g., B-C, C-B. For example, if a subject is trained to select B 1 in the
presence of A1 and C1 in the presence of A1, transitive relations would be demonstrated by the
subject selecting B1 in the presence of CI and C1 in the presence of B1. To meet the
requirement of untrained emergence, test trials for these relations are always conducted without
feedback. In summary, it can be said that stimulus equivalence has emerged only if the
requirements of untrained reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity are demonstrated amongst the
members of a class during unreinforced test trials.
One aspect of stimulus equivalence that is particularly relevant to the issue of emotional
responding is the transfer of functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Transfer of
functions refers to the acquisition of stimulus function by virtue of membership in an
 Transfer of Avoidance 183
equivalence class (Dougher & Markham, 1997; Dougher & Markham, 1994; Hayes, 1991;
Hayes & Hayes, 1989). In general, if one member of a stimulus equivalence class has or
acquires a stimulus function, other members of that class will also acquire that function even
though there has been no direct training with those other stimuli.
A variety of stimulus functions including discriminative functions (Green, Sigurdardottir, &
Saunders, 1991; Lazar, 1977; Lazar & Kotlarchyk, 1986; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988), transfer of
contextual control (Gatch & Osborne, 1989; Kohlenberg, Hayes, & Hayes, 1991; Meehan &
Fields, 1995), and conditioned reinforcement and punishment (Greenway, Dougher, & Wulfert,
1996; Hayes, Kohlenberg, & Hayes, 1991) have been shown to transfer via stimulus
equivalence classes,
Recent research has also demonstrated that respondent functions and extinction will transfer
through stimulus equivalence classes (Augustson & Dougher, 1995; Dougher, Augustson,
Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994; Hackbert, Dougher, & Augustson, 1994; Markham &
Dougher, 1995). Based on these findings, it seems reasonable that the transfer of eliciting
functions through equivalence classes may begin to suggest an explanation of the findings
which have challenged traditional conditioning accounts of emotional disorders.
While the findings of Dougher and his colleagues have possible clinical implications, the
clinical significance of a stimulus is often not so much in terms of its fear eliciting properties as
in the extent to which it engenders avoidance behavior. Indeed, avoidance is seen as the key
factor in the maintenance of anxiety from a wide variety of perspectives (Judd, 1994; Levis &
Hare, 1977; Maier, Roth, Argyle, Buller, Lavori, Brandon, & Benkert, 1991; Mineka, 1979:
Schneier, Heckelman, Garfinkel, Campeas, Fallon, Gitow, Street, Del Bene, & Liebowitz,
1994; Seligman & Johnston, 1973; Siddle & Bond, 1988; Stampfl & Levis, 1976). In addition,
phobic individuals typically seek treatment not because they fear particular objects or settings,
but because the avoidance of these feared situations interferes with other important
contingencies of reinforcement operating in their lives (see Barlow, 1988~ Beck & Emery,
1985; Judd, 1994).
The etiologies of specific avoidance behaviors must be accounted for in any model of anxiety
and are also subject to the same fundamental criticism as the explanations of the respondent
functions themselves. In particular, an account must be provided for avoidance behavior
evoked by previously unencountered situations or situations that have never been associated
with aversive experiences. Again, this may in part be explained by transfer of function within
stimulus equivalence classes.
This experiment attempted to explore whether stimulus control of avoidance responding will
also transfer through equivalence classes. Such a demonstration would extend the range of
stimulus functions shown to transfer through equivalence classes and would have clear clinical
implications. It would suggest a process by which humans come to avoid stimuli which have
never before been paired with aversive consequences.

Method

Subjects

Eight (one female and seven male) undergraduates taking introductory psychology coturses at
the University of New Mexico were recruited through in-class and bulletin board
announcements. They received course credit for their participation in the experiment as well
as a chance to win a $20.00 bonus awarded to the subject who earned the most points on the
184 ERIK M. AUGUSTSON and MICHAEL J. DOUGHER
operant task. All subjects were screened for potential health risks, but none were excluded. The
experimental procedures were explained fully to all subjects, and it was emphasized that they
could discontinue the experiment at any time. None chose to do so. All subjects signed
statements of informed consent and all were fully debriefed at the end of the experiment.

Experimental Setting, Apparatus and Stimuli

Subjects worked in a 6 x 4 ft 2 experimental room equipped with a two-way mirror for

observation. They were seated at a table upon which was a personal computer and three
telegraph keys. The computer was used to present stimuli and record data during all phases of
the experiment. The telegraph keys were used to select stimuli in the conditional discrimination
training phase of the experiment. In addition, the middle key served as the operandum for the
operant task used in the on-line conditioning procedure. Mild electric shock applied for
200 msec to the outside of the right forearm served as the US. Each subject set their own shock
level at a point which was uncomfortable but not painful. Levels ranged from 1.25 to 2.0 nLa,.
Shock was delivered by a Lafayette (Model No. 82404) variable amperage shock generator.
The shock electrodes consisted of two 0.25 in. nickel plated electrodes fastened 0.25 in. apart
to a 1.5 in. (wide)x2 in. (long) piece of plexiglass. The plexiglass was strapped to the subject's
right forearm with a velcro strip.
Stimuli used in the experiment consisted of 12 abstract figures arbitrarily divided into three
classes (see Figure 2) unsystematically across subjects. For convenience, stimuli are
alphanumerically designated (e.g., AI, B2, C3), although these designations were not seen
by the subjects. All stimuli were white on a black background.

mm
mm

Figure 2. Stimuli used in the experiment.

 Transfer of Avoidance 185
Phase I
Stimulus Equivalence Training and Testing

Phase 2
Classical Conditi~)ning

Phase 3
Avoidance Training

Phase 4
Test for Transfer of Avoidance Functi,~n

Phase 5
Final Equivalence Testing

Figure 3. Schematic overview of procedural phases for the experiment.

Procedure

All procedures were reviewed and approved by the University of New Mexico Human
Subject and Review Committee. The study consisted of five phases (See Figure 3).

Phase 1: Stimulus Equivalence 1"raining and Testing. During this phase, the necessary baseline
conditional relations for the emergence of two-four member stimulus equivalence classes were
trained using standard conditional discrimination procedures (Sidman, 1986: Sidman, 1987).
The third class of figures served only as incorrect comparisons, and specific relations among
them were neither trained nor tested.
A sample stimulus appeared on the top-middle of the computer screen, followed two seconds
later by three comparisons, one from each of the three classes, appearing on the bottom left,
middle and right of the screen. The specific stimuli used in this phase varied across subjects so
that each subject was presented with different arrays of samples and comparisons.
Subjects made their choices by pressing the corresponding telegraph key below each figure.
After a key was pressed, the screen cleared and written feedback, "Correct" or "Wrong",
appeared. The screen again cleared and, after a two-second intertrial interval, the next set of
stimuli appeared. Six relations were trained during this phase, as presented in Table 1 In the
presence of AI, selections of B1, C1, and D1 were reinforced and, in the presence of A2,
selections of B2, C2, and D2 were reinforced. All other choices were followed by "Wrong". In
both training and testing, comparison arrays were always comprised of stimuli with the same c~-
designation, i.e., BI, B2, B3 or C1, C2, C3, etc. Thus, for each sample the corresponding
comparison array never varied (Sidman, 1987). Each presentation of a sample and its
comparisons comprised a trial type, and training trials were presented in blocks of six trial
types, one for each trained relation (see Table l). The order of trial types was randomized
across blocks with the exception that no trial type was repeated within a given block. The
screen position of the comparison stimuli was also randomized across trials, so that there was
186 ERIK M. AUGUSTSON and MICHAEL J. DOUGHER

Table 1

Trained and Tested Conditional Relations in Phase 1. Conditional Relations are Labeled by the
Designations for Sample and Correct Comparison Stimuli, Respectively
Trained Symmetry tests Equivalence tests
A I-B 1 B 1-A 1 B 1-C 1 B2-C2
A1-CI C1-AI B1-DI B2-D2
A1-DI D1-AI CI-B1 C2-B2
A2-B2 B2-A2 C 1-D 1 C2-D2
A2-C2 C2-A2 D 1-B 1 D2-B2
A2-D2 D2-A2 D 1-C 1 D2-C2

no systematic relation between a comparison stimulus and its screen position. These rules
applied to all blocks of trials in both training and testing throughout the experiment. A
performance criterion of 97% over 17 trial blocks was adopted for training and testing. Thus,
training continued until subjects reached a performance criterion of 99 correct trials over 17
consecutive trial blocks (102 consecutive trials). After this, tests for symmetry and equivalence
were introduced in extinction.
As presented in Table 1 six symmetry and 12 equivalence relations were tested. After
subjects reached criterion in training, blocks of six symmetry trials were presented. Each of the
six possible symmetry relations was included in each block, and, within that constraint, the
order of presentation was random. Trials continued until subjects reached a criterion of 99
correct trials over 17 consecutive trial blocks (102 trials).
Once the symmetry criterion was reached, equivalence tests were introduced in blocks of 18
trial types consisting of 12 equivalence tests and 6 symmetry tests. All 12 possible equivalence
relations and all six symmetry relations were presented in quasi-random order within each
block. Testing continued until subjects reached a criterion of 192 correct trials over 11
consecutive trial blocks (198 trials).

Phase 2: Classical Conditioning. A delayed classical conditioning procedure was used in order
to establish the relation between shock and the B stimuli. To maintain subject's attention to the
computer screen, the conditioning trials were superimposed on a key press task in which one
point was earned for every 250 key presses (fixed ratio 250). The points were tallied on the
computer monitor and visible to the subjects throughout the task. A five-minute period of
baseline responding on the operant task was taken before classical conditioning began.
For classical conditioning, B1 served as the CS + and B2 served as the C S - . Stimulus
duration varied randomly between 15 and 25 seconds and the interstimulus interval varied from
60 to 90 seconds. The stimuli were presented in a semi-random order with the constraint that no
more than two B1 or B2 presentations could occur sequentially. There were a total of six BI
and six B2 presentations.

Phase 3: Avoidance Training. Following the conditioning trials, avoidance training was
introduced. Subject's received minimal instructions indicating that avoidance was possible
based on responses made to the key to the subject's right. Avoidance training consisted of six
presentations of both B1 and B2 and was superimposed on the button pressing task. The
 Transfer of Avoidance 187
conditioning parameters were the same as is Phase 3, however 20 responses on the telegraph
key to the subject's right caused the stimulus on the monitor to disappear and no shock was
delivered. Less than 20 responses during a presentation of B 1 resulted in a shock with the same
duration and intensity as in the previous conditioning phase. No shock was ever delivered
following B2, regardless of subjects' responses.

Phase 4: Test Jor Transfer. Immediately after avoidance training, the test for transfer was
introduced. With the exception of the A stimuli, all of the figures from classes one and two in
equivalence training were presented while subjects continued to perform the operant task. The
A stimuli were not presented because a response to them could be interpreted as higher-order
conditioning rather than transfer of function, inasmuch as the A stimuli had been directly
associated with the B stimuli during equivalence training. Four trial blocks consisting of one
presentation of each of the B, C, and D stimuli were presented to the subjects while they
performed the key-press task. Stimulus presentations were quasi-random within each trial
block. All stimuli were presented in extinction.

Phase 5: Final Equivalence Testing.

Following the test for transfer, all subjects received mixed symmetry and equivalence testing
to determine whether the originally trained stimulus equivalence classes remained intact. These
tests were identical to the mixed test trials described in Phase one. That is, all six possible
symmetry tests and all 12 possible equivalence tests were presented in quasi-random order
within each trial block. Each subject received 11 trial blocks for a total of 198 test trials.

Results

All subjects successfully reached the criterion for equivalence without the need for
retraining. Training trials ranged from 114 (Subject 7) to 228 (Subject 3), but once the training
criterion was met, all subjects demonstrated few errors during both the symmetry and
equivalence testing. During retesting of symmetry and equivalence (Phase 5), no subjects made
any significant errors. All subjects reached criterion within the 11 trial blocks with very few
errors, and most went through with perfect performance. Thereby demonstrating that the
classes had maintained throughout the experiment.
Subjects' avoidance training data are depicted in Table 2. Twenty or more responses during a
given stimulus presentation constituted successful avoidance. The data for all eight subjects
indicate that B 1 acquired differential stimulus control over their avoidance responses. Subjects
1 and 6 avoided all shocks, Subjects 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 avoided all but one shock, and Subject 4
avoided all but two shocks. Moreover, only two subjects emitted any avoidance responses to
B2, and of the two who did, Subject 6 responded only once. Differential control over Subject
7's responding did not occur until the last two stimulus presentations.
Transfer of control data are presented in Table 3. These data clearly demonstrate the transfer
of stimulus control over avoidance responding. All of the subjects emitted avoidance responses
to all of the class one stimuli every time they were presented, and, except for Subject 1 who
emitted avoidance responses during the first two presentations of B2 and the first presentation
of C2, none of the subjects emitted any avoidance responses during any of the presentations of
the class two stimuli.
188 ERIK M. AUGUSTSON and MICHAEL J. DOUGHER

Table 2

Number of Responses on the Telegraph Key for Each Subject by Trial and Stimulus Type During
Avoidance Training. Twenty or More Responses Indicates Successful Avoidance of the UCS
Subject Stimulus Trial number
1 2 3 4 5 6

Number 1 B 41 37 37 49 31 42
B2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number 2 B 31 27 30 13 25 34
B2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number 3 B 25 25 2 26 27 28
B2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number 4 B 4 7 33 25 34 44
B2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number 5 B 17 44 28 23 25 25
B2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number 6 B 31 23 23 42 22 24
B2 0 1 0 0 0 0
Number 7 B 20 22 34 18 28 27
B2 0 34 18 32 0 0
Number 8 BI 45 0 52 41 33 34
B2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Discussion

All eight subjects clearly demonstrated the transfer of stimulus control over avoidance
responding through stimulus equivalence classes. These results extend the range of stimulus
functions that have been shown to transfer to avoidance evocation. In addition, these results
have implications for our understanding of emotional responding, in general, and have clinical
implications.
The present results, especially when coupled with previous research in this area (Augustson
& Dougher, 1995; Dougher et al., 1994; Hackbert et al., 1994; Markham & Dougher, 1995),
suggest a process by which stimuli can acquire and lose their ability to elicit emotional
responding in the absence of direct conditioning. When stimuli enter into equivalence classes
with other fear inducing stimuli, they too acquire fear inducing properties which in turn can
evoke avoidance behavior. By virtue of their membership in equivalence classes, stimuli which
have never been associated with aversive experiences can come to evoke avoidance behavior
and elicit emotional responses. Thus, an individual could demonstrate avoidance and anxiety in
the presence of stimuli which had never been paired with aversive consequences. Accordingly,
these findings may have implications for our understanding of the development of emotionally
based clinical disorders and certain clinical interventions. By demonstrating that stimuli can
evoke avoidance behavior, as well as respondent elicitation, in the absence of a direct aversive
conditioning history, these results begin to address some of the influential criticisms of
conditioning based models of anxiety and other emotional disorders (see Marks, 1981; Menzies
& Clarke, 1995; Rachman, 1976 Rachman, 1977; Reiss, 1980).
 Transfer of Avoidance 189

Table 3

Number of Responses on the Telegraph Key During the Test J?)r Transfer of the Avoidance Function )br
Each Subject by Trial and Stimulus Type. TwenO, or More Responses Indicates Successful Avoidance.
Presentation Number
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Number l Bl: 54 31 29 33 Number 2 Bl: 44 21 21 39

CI: 24 32 34 33 CI: 36 30 41 42
DI: 35 29 30 32 DI: 45 37 33 23
B2: 28 22 0 0 B2: 0 0 0 0
C2: 30 0 0 0 C2: 0 0 0 0
D2: 0 0 0 0 D2: 0 0 0 0
Number 3 BI: 20 21 36 31 Number 4 BI: 36 42 43 41
CI: 27 28 30 32 CI: 35 41 40 42
D 1: 26 40 46 25 D 1: 34 40 42 42
B2: 0 0 0 0 B2: 0 0 0 0
C2: 0 0 0 0 C2: 0 0 0 0
D2: 0 0 0 0 D2: 0 0 0 0
Number 5 B 1: 24 45 22 25 Number 6 B I: 45 41 23 23
C 1: 23 25 24 24 C I: 47 36 23 23
DI: 45 24 24 25 DI: 24 41 27 27
B2: 0 0 0 0 B2: 0 0 0 0
C2: 0 0 0 0 C2: 0 0 l) 0
D2: 0 0 0 0 D2: 0 0 0 0
Number 7 B 1: 28 31 31 30 Number 8 B 1: 43 23 27 28
CI: 30 31 31 29 CI: 65 29 31 28
D I: 26 31 32 32 D I: 52 27 36 31
B2: 0 0 0 0 B2: 0 0 0 0
C2: 0 0 0 0 C2: 0 0 0 0
D2: 0 0 0 0 C2: 0 0 0 0

T h e r e are n o t e w o r t h y limitations to the current results. This study is an analog o f possible

processes i n v o l v e d in the acquisition and generalization of h u m a n p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y , although
these results serve as a demonstration of h o w stimulus e q u i v a l e n c e m a y be involved. It should
be noted that the levels o f the c o n d i t i o n e d responding seen in this e x p e r i m e n t were not
clinically significant. T o date, no study in this area has yet to directly apply these procedures to
a clinical population or to assess if such processes exist within such a population.
T h e transfer of function associated with stimulus e q u i v a l e n c e is one o f the most interesting
and important findings in the stimulus e q u i v a l e n c e literature. It provides an account of h o w
stimuli can acquire p s y c h o l o g i c a l functions in the absence of direct training and, relatedly, h o w
it is that h u m a n s can b e h a v e appropriately in n o v e l situations. A l t h o u g h this body of work is
p r o v o c a t i v e , additional research is n e e d e d to address a myriad of u n a n s w e r e d questions
regarding stimulus e q u i v a l e n c e in general and its potential role in the acquisition and
generalization o f h u m a n e m o t i o n a l responding and p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y .
190 E R I K M. A U G U S T S O N and M I C H A E L J. D O U G H E R

References

Antony, M. M. & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Emotion theory as a framework for explaining panic attacks and panic disorder.
In R.M. Rapee (Ed.), Current controversies in the anxiety disorders. New York: The Guilford Press.
Augustson, E. M. & Dougher, M. J. (1995). The transfer of respondent eliciting fimctions via complex stimulus
equivalence classes. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association of Behavior Analysis.
Barlow, D. H. (1988). Anxiety and its disorders': The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Beck, A. T. & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspective. New York: Basic Books.
Bond, N. W. & Siddle, D. A. T. (1996). The preparedness account of social phobias: Some data and alternative
explanations. In R.M. Rapee (Ed.), Current controversies in the anxiety, disorders. New York: The Guilford Press.
Clark, D. M. (1988). A cognitive model of panic attacks. In S. Rachman and J.D. Maser (Eds.) Panic: Psychological
perspectives, Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davey, G. C. L. (1992). Classical conditioning and the acquisition of human fears and phobias: A review and synthesis
of the literature. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14, 29-66.
Davey, G. C. L., & Matchett, G. (1994). Unconditioned stimulus rehearsal and the retention and enhancement of
differential ' 'fear" conditioning: Effects of trait and state anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 708-718.
Deitz, S. R. (1982). Individual differences in electrodermal response conditioning and self-report of discomfort: A
phobia analogue. Physiological Psychology, 21, 239-245.
Delprato, D. J. & McGlynn, F. D. (1984). Behavioral theories of anxiety disorders. In S.M. Turner (Ed.), Behavioral
theories and treatment of anxiety. New York: Plenum Press.
Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E. M., 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, 331-351.
Dougher, M. J. & Markham, M. R. (1994). Stimulus equivalence, functional equivalence and the transfer of function. In
S. C. Hayes, L. H. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Cognitive and verbal events: A behavior analytic view. Reno,
NV: Context Press.
Dougher, M. J. & Markham, M. R. (1997). Stimulus classes and the untrained acquisition of stimulus function. In T.R.
Zental & P.M. Smeets (Eds.) Advances in psychology series: The formation of stimulus classes. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Eysenck, H. J. (1976). The learning theory model of neurosis: A new approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14,
251-267.
Eysenck, H. J. (1979). The conditioning model of neurosis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 155-199.
Eysenck, H. J. (1985). Incubation theory of fear/anxiety. In S. Reiss and R.R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues in
behavioral therapy (pp. 85-105). New York: Academic Press.
Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 48, 317-332.
Gatch, M. B., & Osborne, J. G. (1989). Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 369-378.
Green, G., Sigurdardottir, Z, G., & Saunders, R. R. (1991). The role of instructions in the transfer of~ordinal functions
through equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 287-304.
Greenway, D. E., Dougher, M. J. & Wulfert, E. (1996). The transfer of conditioned reinforcement and punishment via
stimulus equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 46, 131-143.
Hackbert, L., Dougher, M. J. & Augustson, E. M. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and the transfer of anxiety responses:
The effects of altering stimulus equivalence class membership. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of
Association for the Advancement of Behavioral Therapy.
Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational frames theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. H. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogue
on verbal behavior. Reno, NV: Context Press.
Hayes, S. C. & Hayes, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the listener as a basis for rule governance. In S.C. Hayes (Ed.),
Rule-governed behavior." Cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 153-190). New York: Plenum
Press.
Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of general and specific consequential functions
through simple and conditional equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119-
137.
Judd, L. L. (1994). Social phobia: A clinical review. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, Suppl.:5-9.
Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes
through equivalence classes: A possible model of social stereotyping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 56, 505-518.
Lazar, R. M. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership with matching-to-sample. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381-392.
Lazar, R. M., & Kotlarchyk, B. J. (1986). Second-order control of sequence-class equivalence in children. Behavioural
Processes, 13, 205-215.
 Transfer o f Avoidance 191
Levis, D. J. (1985). Implosive theory: A comprehensive extension of conditioning theory of fear/anxiety to
psychopathology. In S. Reiss and R. R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues in behavioral therapy (pp. 49-82). New
York: Academic Press.
Levis, D. J. & Hare, N. (1977). A review of the theoretical rational and empirical support for the extinction approach of
implosive (flooding) therapy. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler and P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification,
Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press.
Maier, W., Roth, S. M., Argyle, N., Buller, R., Lavori, P., Brandon. S., & Benkert, O. (1991). Avoidance behaviour: A
predictor of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in panic disorder'?. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical
Neuroscience, 241, 151-158.
Margraf, J. & Ehlers, A. (1989). Etiological models of panic: Psychophysiological and cognitive aspects. In Baker, R.
(Ed.), Panic disorder: Research and therapy. London: Wiley.
Markham, M. R. & Dougher, M. J. (1995). Transfer of operant and respondent elicitation via emergent relat,:ans of
compound stimuli. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association of Behavior Analysis.
Marks, I. M. (1966). Fear and phobias. New York: Academic Press.
Marks, I. M. (1981). Behavioral concepts and treatments of neuroses. Behavioral Psychotherapy, 9, 137-154.
Marks, I. M. (1987). Fears, phobias and rituals: Panic, anxiet~, and their disorders. New York: Oxford University
Press.
McNally, R. J. (1987). Preparedness and phobias: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 283-303.
McNally, R. J. (1990). Psychological approaches to panic disorder: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 40~-419.
Meehan, F., & Fields, L. (1995). Contextual control of new equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 45, 165~
182.
Menzies, R. G., & Clarke, J. C. (1995). The etiology of phobias: A nonassociative account. Clinical Psychology Review,
15, 23-48.
Mineka, S. (1979). The role of fear in theories of avoidance learning, flooding and extinction. Psychological Bulletin,
86, 985-1010.
Mineka, S. (1985). The frightful complexity of the origins of lear. In F. R. Brush & J. B. Overmier (Eds.), Affect,
conditioning and cognition: Essays on the determinants of behavior. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ohman, A., Dimberg, U. & Ost, L. (1985). Animal and social phobias: Biological constraints on learned tear responses.
In S. Reiss & R.R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues in behavior ther~tpy (pp.123-175). New York: Academic
Press.
Rachman, S. J. (1976). The passing of the two-stage theory of fear and ~voidance: Fresh possibilities. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 14, 125-131.
Rachman, S. J. (1977). The conditioning theory, of fear-acquisition: A critical examination. Behaviour Reseacch and
Therapy, 15, 375-387.
Rapee, R. M. (1996). Information processing views of panic disorder. In R. M. Rapee (Ed.), Current controversies' in
the anxiety disorders. New York: The Guilford Press.
Reiss, S. (1980). Pavlovian conditioning and human fear: An expectancy model. Behavior Therapy, 11, 380-396.
Reiss, S. (1991). Expectancy model of fear, anxiety and panic. Clinical Psychology Review, I 1, 141-153.
Reiss, S. & McNally, R. J. (1985). Expectancy model of fear. In S. Reiss & R. R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical is'sues in
behavior therapy' (pp. 107-121). New York: Academic Press.
Schneier, F. R., Heckelman, L. R., Garfinkel, R., Campeas, R., Fallon, B. A.. Gitow, A., Street, L.. Del Bene, Del Bene,
& Liebowitz, M. R. (1994). Functional impairment in social phobia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatt3', 55, 322-331.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2, 307-320.
Seligman, M. E. P. & Johnston, J. C. (1973). A cognitive theory of avoidance learning. In F..I. McGuigan & D. B.
Lumsden (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to conditioning and learnine. Washington, DC: Scripta press
Siddle, D. A. T., & Bond, N. W. (1988). Avoidance learning, Pavlovian conditioning and the development of phobias.
Biological Psychology, 27, 167-183.
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). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 1 L-18.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research stora,. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. O. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching-to-sample: An expansion of the testing
paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22.
Stampfl, T. G. & Levis, D. J. (1976). Implosive therapy: A behavioral therapy. In J. T. Spence. R. C Carson & J. W.
Thibant (Eds.), Behavioral approach to therapy. Morristown, N J: Learning Press.
Wolpe, J. (1989). The derailment of behavior therapy: A tale of conceptual misdirection. Journal ~?'Behavior Therapy
and Experimental Psychiatry, 204, 3-15.
Wolpe, J. (1993). Commentary: The cognitivist oversell and comments on symposium contributions. Journal ~/"
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiato,, 24, 141-147.
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes.
Journal ~( the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125-144.