Symbolic  Inheritance  and  Derived  Rela5onal  Responding  

Jablonka  four  inheritance  systems  

•  Gene5c  •  Epigene5c  •  Learning  •  Symbolic  thought  

Wallace  -­‐  Pinker  

•  ‘that  abstract  intelligence  was  of  no  use  to  ancestral  humans  and  could  only  be  explained  by  intelligent  design’  

•  Intelligence  is  an  adapta5on  to  a  knowledge-­‐using,  socially  interdependent  lifestyle,  the  “cogni5ve  niche.”    

Pinker  Hominids  evolved  to  specialize  in  the  cogni5ve  niche,  which  is  defined  by:      •  1.  Reasoning  about  the  causal  structure  of  the  world  

•  2.  Coopera5ng  with  other  individuals  

•  3.  Sharing  that  knowledge  and  nego5a5ng  those  agreements  via  language  

Classical  condi5oning  and  operant  condi5oning  

   •  ‘Instrumental  and  classical  condi5oning  are  not  adequate  for  an  analysis  of  language’    – Seligman  (1970)    

•  Rela5vely  limi5ng    •  Rapid  transforma5ons  of  environment      

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Mic

rosi

emen

Cha

nge

rela

tive

to B

B - Sixshocks

A - Single1/2 strength

shock

C - DerivedLarge

Relational Training No Relational Training

Dougher, Hamilton, Fink, & Harrington (2007)

15 normal subjects

Establish this relational network in half of them using arbitrary stimuli:

A < B < C

Give B a CS shock function and then present a single ½ strength shock in the presence of A

Test the C stimulus . . .

Con5ngency  Learning  -­‐Classical  Condi5oning  and  ToF  

Derived Relations of Comparison

MORE THAN MORE THAN university  class   corner  

store  living  room  

Panic  a[ack  in  one’s  own  living  room  results  in  increased  arousal  and  avoidance  of  corner  store  and  university  class    

B1

C2 C1

B2

A1

Same Less

Same More

Same

Less

More

Train 1 Response Function

Test 1 Response Function

Test 2 Response Function

Test 0 Response Function

Dymond and Barnes (1995)

[more]

[less]

Con5ngency  Learning  -­‐  Operant  Condi5oning  and  ToF  

•  DRR correlates with cognitive / verbal ability

0

25

50

75

100

1 2 3 4Blocks of Testing (No Feedback)

Perc

enta

ge C

orre

ct

LD: No receptive

LD: Receptive

Normal

Devany, Hayes, & Nelson (1986)

Cha

nce

Barnes, McCullagh, & Keenan (1990)

0

25

50

75

100

1 2 3 4Blocks of Testing (No Feedback)

Perc

enta

ge C

orre

ct

Normal

Hearing Impaired: Language =>2 yrs

Cha

nce

Hearing Impaired: Expressive Naming No Receptive Naming

n  …and  with  the  development  of  specific  verbal  skills  

Evidence that DRR and language are closely linked

Derived  rela5ons  produce  priming  effects  

Evidence that DRR and language are closely linked

Hayes & Bissett (1998)

Directly Trained and Equivalent Stimuli

Non-Equivalent Stimuli

Directly Trained

Non-Equivalent Stimuli

Equivalent Stimuli

Left Hemisphere Right Hemisphere

Derived relations produce differential ERPs

Evidence that DRR and language are closely linked

BARNES-HOLMES ET AL. (2005)

Derived relations produce fMRI activation patterns that resemble those involved in semantic processing

Evidence that DRR and language are closely linked

VERBAL FLUENCY

DERIVED RELATIONS (FAILURE)

DERIVED RELATIONS (SUCCESS)

DICKENS ET AL. (2001)

15m24d Incorrect

Correct

16m25d 19m7d 23m26d 17m 22m

100%

Green = Naming

Red = Receptive Symmetry

# = delay in minutes

30   3  30   1  

Zero  baselines  in  both,  even  with  short  delays  

30  720  30  720  

1440  1440  

BA

/ C

B

AC

/ C

A

2  Ch

oice  SE  AB

 /  BC

 

&  SE  is  there;  +    recep5ve  sym  w/  12  hr  delays  but  no      

 naming  

2400  1440   2400  1440  

BA

/ C

B

AC

/ C

A

3  Ch

oice  SE  AB

 /  BC

 

3  mo  later  naming  finally  catches  up  

30  

180  78  Tria

ls  of  M

ET  

180   180  

180  

180   180  180  

30   30  

78  Tria

ls  of  M

ET  

30  

MET  produces  recep5ve  symmetry  (with  new  objects  &  long  delays),  but  naming  is  s5ll  at  zero  levels  

Luciano, Gomez & Rodriguez (2007)

Evidence that DRR and language are closely linked

Figure 1. Within subject analysis for Aladdin. Multiple baseline across levels of Complexity includes data series for each deictic relational frame. The lower panel represents Theory of Mind probe percentages.  

Evidence that DRR and language are closely linked Theory  of  Mind  

Implicit  Associa-on  Test  

   White                              Black  

         or                                    or  

Pleasant                      Unpleasant  

L                                                                R  Love  

   White                                Black  

         or                                      or  

Pleasant                      Unpleasant  

L                                                                R  Hate  

Consistent  Tasks  (Pro-­‐White/An5-­‐Black  Bias)  

       White                              Black  

             or                                    or  

Unpleasant                          Pleasant  

       White                              Black  

             or                                    or  

Unpleasant                          Pleasant  

Inconsistent  Tasks  (Pro-­‐Black/An5-­‐White  Bias)  

L                                                                R  Hate   Love  L                                                                R  

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Consistent Inconsistent

Mean  Millsecond

s  

Numerous   studies   have   shown  that   white   par5cipants   tend   to  produce   a   pro-­‐white/an5-­‐black  IAT  effect:    

IAT  Effect  

The  IAT  Limita-on  •  One widely recognised limitation to the IAT is that it provides a

measure of relative associative strength, which can mask the exact nature of the attitudes under study

Posi-ve   Nega-ve  

White  

Black  

Targe-ng  associa-ons  rather  than  a?tudes  

Associa5ons  are  Bi-­‐direc5onal  Ac5va5ons  

White   Good  

Aktudes  and  Beliefs  Involve  Rela5ons/Proposi5ons  

Black    Bad  

Indirect  Evidence  for  the  Belief  that  White  is  Be[er  than  Black  

Black  White   be[er  than  

worse  than  Black   White  

Or  Several  Rela5ons/Proposi5ons  

Bad  White   Chris-an  if  not  a   is  

IRAP  predicts  sub  clinical  depression  based  on  future  expectancies  

-­‐0.4  

-­‐0.2  

0  

0.2  

0.4  

0.6  

0.8  

PosD   NegD  Mean  D I

RAP  S

core  

IRAP  Trial  Type  

Non-­‐Depressed  

Depressed  

Kosnes,  Whelan,  O’Donovan  &  McHugh,  2013  

Wallace  

•  Intelligence  is  an  adapta5on  to  a  knowledge-­‐using,  socially  interdependent  lifestyle,  the  “cogni5ve  niche.”    

BUT  WHAT  IS  INTELLIGENCE?    DRR  -­‐  OPERANT  

Pinker  Hominids  evolved  to  specialize  in  the  cogni5ve  niche,  which  is  defined  by:      •  1.  Reasoning  about  the  causal  structure  of  the  world  

•  2.  Coopera5ng  with  other  individuals  

•  3.  Sharing  that  knowledge  and  nego5a5ng  those  agreements  via  language  

Mul5ple  s5mulus  rela5ons  

Ini5al  non  verbal  level    Deic5cs  

Symbolic  Inheritance  and  Derived  Rela5onal  Responding