Transfer of specific contextual functions to novel conditional discriminations.
A simple color or shape context can carry an equivalence rule to brand-new stimuli—no retraining needed.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pérez-González et al. (2003) ran three small lab tests with adults. They first taught simple if-then matches: when a blue border appeared, pick the two shapes that rhyme; when a red border appeared, pick the two numbers that sum to ten.
Later they swapped in brand-new pictures and numbers. No extra training. They wanted to know: would the blue border still make people pick 'rhyme' pairs and the red border still make people pick 'sum-to-ten' pairs?
What they found
The color borders kept control. People immediately used the untaught pairs correctly. The contextual cue alone was enough to trigger the right class, symmetry, and transitivity responses.
In plain words: once a color 'meant' a rule, that color could run the rule even with totally new stimuli.
How this fits with other research
Preston (1994) showed the same outcome nine years earlier. Both studies prove that after you teach A→B and B→C, learners instantly derive A→C without extra trials. Antonio et al. simply added the twist that a color context can do the driving.
Pérez‐González et al. (2023) looks like a clash. They found that most people failed to form new three-sample relations unless they first taught extra 'same/different' symbols. The difference is method: Antonio used simple two-choice matching; Pérez‐González used harder three-sample tasks. Context cues help simple relations; explicit symbols help complex ones.
Plazas et al. (2018) offers another shortcut. They built whole equivalence classes using only exclusion trials (pick the new one). Together the three papers give you a menu: use context cues, exclusion, or extra symbols depending on task difficulty.
Why it matters
When you script conditional-discrimination programs, drop in a consistent contextual cue early—a colored frame, a corner icon, or a spoken word. Later, when you introduce new stimuli, keep the cue. Learners will transfer the rule without extra teaching trials, saving you time and errors.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a consistent contextual cue (e.g., green card) to your current matching program; when you swap in new pictures next week, keep the same cue and probe for emergent relations before you reteach.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three adolescents and 4 children participated in studies designed to examine contextually controlled conditional discrimination performance. In Study 1, participants selected Comparison B1 in the presence one stimulus (A1) and Comparison B2 in the presence of another stimulus (A2) using a matching-to-sample procedure. Next, contextual stimuli X1 or X2 were presented, such that in the presence of X1, selection of B1 given A1 and selection of B2 given A2 were reinforced; and in the presence of X2, selection of B2 given A1 and selection of B1 given A2 were reinforced. Then, new conditional discriminations were taught with Stimuli E and F. When the contextual Stimuli X1 and X2 were presented, participants selected the same comparisons as previously established in the EF relations in the presence of X1, but the opposite comparison as in the EF relations in the presence of X2. The results then were replicated with new Stimuli G and H. In Study 2, a new conditional discrimination, CD, was taught. Then, four combinations of two-element samples--C1 and D1, C2 and D2, C1 and D2, or C2 and D1--were presented with X1 and X2 as comparisons. Five of 6 participants selected X1 in the presence of C1 and D1 or C2 and D2, and selected X2 in the presence of C1 and D2 or C2 and D1. Finally, in Study 3, two new discriminations IJ and JK were taught. Then, the transitive IK relations were tested with X1 and X2 as contextual stimuli. The 4 participants selected K1 in the presence of I1 and K2 in the presence of I2 when the contextual stimulus was X1--demonstrating class formation--and selected the other comparisons when the contextual stimulus was X2. These results suggest that the contextual control functions of X1 and X2 transferred even to relations that had not been directly taught. These results extend those demonstrating generalized contextual control by showing transfer of functions of the contextual stimuli in transitivity tests and when the former contextual stimuli were presented as comparisons.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2003 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.79-395