Emergence and Reversal of Internal and External Attributions

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2010, 11, 5-16 NUMBER 1 (SUMMER 2010) 5 Emergence and Reversal of Internal and External Attributions J. Carmelo Visdómine Incarcerated Treatment Division, Madrid, Spain Carmen Luciano Universidad de Almería, Spain Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas University at Albany, State University of New York Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez Universidad de Barcelona, Spain José Ortega Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Spain The present study addresses the emergence and reversal of so-called internal and external attributions and difficulty estimations in relation to a series of problem-solving tasks. Fifteen adults between 18 and 25 years old participated. Two 12-member pre-existing arbitrary classes (Category 1 and Category 2) were assessed by employing a stimuli-sorting task. Subsequently, by means of differential cueing and feedback, internal and external attributions were established in relation to three problems labelled with stimuli pertaining to Category 1 (names of African countries) and Category 2 (female first names), respectively. Next, participants were tested for the differential emergence of attributions and difficulty estimations with two novel labels per category. All participants showed emergence. Then, two interventions designed to reverse the attributions (a general instruction and an illustrated instruction focused on problem difficulty) were implemented with ten and five participants, respectively. The effect of both interventions was subsequently tested with two novel labels per category. Most participants receiving either of the interventions reversed their attributions and difficulty estimations. The conditions that might be responsible for the formation and reversal of attributions are discussed and applied implications are considered. Key words: analogies, attributions, functional classes, problem-solving, transfer of stimulus functions. Responsibility for what happens to us is usually attributed either to our own intervention or to external factors, such as help from Author Note: The authors thank Marisa Páez for their cooperation, and Miguel Rodríguez and Mónica Hernández for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. Correspondence: Carmen Luciano, Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológicos., Universidad de Almería, 04120, Almería, Spain. mluciano@ual.es. others, luck or divine intervention, for example. Responsibility attributions are important given that, although they are not the cause of particular responding (Hayes & Brownstein, 1986), depending on the type of rule-governed behaviour established in the individual s history of interactions, they may definitively be taken as the reason for behaving. For example, responsibility attributions have been documented as 5

2 6 J. Carmelo Visdómine, Carmen Luciano, Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas, Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez and José Ortega relevant variables in the regulation of reactions to problematic situations (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Tryon & Misurell, 2008), or in emerging problematic thoughts about others or oneself (Kammer, 1983), or in the maintenance of psychological well-being (Le Foll, Rascle, & Higgins, 2008). In 1966, J. B. Rotter distinguished between internal and external locus of control on the basis of participants reported expectancies of responsibility in problem-solving tasks. Most traditional experimental studies within this conceptual approach have focused on (a) changing participants internal or external expectancies by manipulating the task feedback and/or the task difficulty (Feather, 1961; James & Rotter, 1958) or, (b) prompting attributions in novel situations based on stimulus generalization (Rychlak & Eacker, 1962; Vreven & Nuttin, 1976). The empirical analysis of the conditions under which external/internal expectancies emerge or change- in novel problem-solving situations without any direct manipulation of the task and in the absence of stimulus generalization between the old and the novel situations is still missing, however. For example, when confronted with a novel problem situation, a person may automatically think that she or he will not be able to solve it unless some help is provided (or contrarily, that she or he will). Developments in the formation of equivalence classes (Sidman & Tailby, 1982), functional classes (Dougher & Markham, 1996; Markham & Markham, 2002) and derived relational responding (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes & Roche, 2001) are offering a behavioral account of the origins of social behaviour and cognition that occurs in the absence of direct training. Within this perspective, an increasing number of studies have demonstrated the untrained acquisition or emergence of stimulus functions by means other than stimulus generalization, using a number of different procedures and subject populations. With regard to attributions, Luciano, Gómez, Molina and Zaldívar (1998) and Visdómine and Luciano (2002) examined the formation and transfer of external/internal attributions. In the former study, a conditional matching-to-sample procedure was used to establish two five-members equivalence classes (A, B, C, D, E) in three 10 to 11 year-old children. Then, ten problems of low difficulty (i.e., which mixture of colours produces the colour purple?), labelled each with a member of the two trained classes, were used for attribution training and testing. By means of differential cueing and feedback, internal and external attributions were, respectively, established for three problems per class (A, B, C). Transfer of attributions was measured as the emergence of self-descriptive reports about internal vs. external problemsolving responsibility when participants were first presented with the two other members of each class (D, E). In Visdómine and Luciano s study, five 7 to 8 year-old children participated. Here, two pre-established categories of five members were used as labels for problemsolving tasks. The remaining procedures were identical to the former study. All participants in both studies showed differential transfer of attributions. These are the first studies showing new attributions across low difficulty problems in the absence of direct training or learning, the first study by properly establishing arbitrary relations between the stimuli, and the second one by using pre-established experimental categories. However, these findings are considered preliminary and additional research is required to demonstrate the transfer of attributions across problems of higher difficulty and with larger sample sizes. The present study was designed to advance the previous ones in several respects. First, attribution training was done with highly difficult problems and with adult participants. Second, transfer of attribution and difficulty estimations were tested with novel examples while the previous studies only tested for attributions. Third, this study was also unique in testing two interventions designed to reverse indirectly the pattern of differentiated attributions with novel examples, either by giving a general simple instruction or an illustrated instruction focused on problem difficulty. These variations may shed light on the understanding of the emergence and change of attributions and difficulty estimations in the absence of explicit training.

3 Emergence and reversal of attributions 7 Method Participants Fifteen undergraduate students (13 females and 2 males), aged between 18 and 25 years, volunteered to participate in the study. All were recruited through in-class announcements and selected on the basis of not reporting prior participation in function transfer research. Experimental Setting, Stimuli and Materials Sessions were conducted in the Psychology Lab at Universidad de Almería in two small rooms. Each room was equipped with a table, two chairs and a tape-recorder (Sony TCM-S68V). Two 12-member pre-existing arbitrary categories (Category 1 and Category 2) were used. Twelve Spanish female first names served as stimuli in Category 1 (the alphanumerical labels were utilized for experimental purposes, but they were not visible to the participants): María (A1), Silvia (B1), Cristina (C1), Rosa (D1), Inés (E1), Verónica (F1), Pilar (G1), Lola (H1), Susana (I1), Natalia (J1), Carmen (K1), and Luisa (L1). Twelve Spanish names of African countries served as stimuli in Category 2: Sudán (A2), Níger (B2), Zaire (C2), Kenia (D2), Camerún (E2), Etiopía (F2), Senegal (G2), Burundi (H2), Zimbaue (I2), Guinea (J2), Uganda (K2) and Congo (L2). Problem-solving tasks required the use of white cards (297x210 mm). Testing cards contained a label (one stimulus from Category 1 or 2), printed in size 80 capitalized Arial font, while training cards contained a label plus the heading of a problem (printed in non-capitalized size 32). All problems required paper and pencil to be solved, except for problems B1 and C1, which required eight 2-eurocent coins, and six glasses and a bottle of water, respectively. Two scales were developed for the purpose of the present study. The attribution scale contained the question What do you attribute having solved this problem to? and three horizontal visual scales (ranging each from 1 to 10): a) own ability, b) others intervention and c) chance. The difficulty scale consisted of a horizontal visual scale ranging from 1 to 10, and the sentence Mark off how difficult this problem looks to you. Experimental Sequence, Problems and Measures The whole procedure comprised five phases through which participants were run individually within a single session. As Figure 1 shows, Phase 1 corresponded to the assessment of Category 1 and Category 2. Pre-existing classes were used because of the large number of stimuli needed throughout the procedure. Phase 2 corresponded to the training of internal and external attributions with three problems in Category 1 (A1, B1, C1) and three problems in Category 2 (A2, B2, C2), respectively. Internal attribution was trained by providing participants with feedback about their own responsibility in producing the solution, right after they had solved each problem with very little prompting. External attribution was trained by providing participants with feedback about the experimenter s responsibility in the solution, after they were repeatedly presented with useless cues that did not prompt the correct solution (see details in the Procedure section). The number of interactions between the experimenter and the participant was the same during the training of both internal and external attributions. The problems used during training were mind games adapted from specialised literature for the purpose of the present study (Cossu, 1990; Mayer, 1992; Summers, 1988; Visdómine & Luciano, 2002). A complete description of all problems can be obtained upon request from the first author. Highly difficult problems, as verified in a pilot study, were selected in order to increase feedback believability during training. The three most difficult problems were used to train external attributions so that participants would need help from others to find the solution. The three problems used to train internal attributions were also highly difficult such that, after minimum prompting, participants would be able to attribute the solution to their own ability.

4 8 J. Carmelo Visdómine, Carmen Luciano, Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas, Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez and José Ortega Phase 1 PRE-EXPERIMENTAL ARBITRARY CATEGORIES EVALUATION Category 1: Female first names Category 2: Names of African countries Phase 2 TRAINING ATTRIBUTIONS Category 1 (problems A1, B1, C1): INTERNAL ATTRIBUTIONS Category 2 (problems A2, B2, C2): EXTERNAL ATTRIBUTIONS Phase 3 TRANSFER TESTS Tests with problem labels D1, E1, D2, E2 Re-training with problems D1, E1, D2, E2 If participants did not reach criteria for differential attributions on previous tests, then new tests with problem labels F1, G1, F2, G2 Phase 4 REVERSAL INTERVENTIONS Problem labels H, I, J General Instruction Illustrated Instruction P.1 to P.10 P.11 to P.15 Phase 5 REVERSAL TESTS Problem labels K1, L1, K2, L2 Figure 1. Schematic overview of the procedure. In Phase 3, the differential emergence of attributions and difficulty estimations were tested with two new labels per category (D1, E1, D2, E2). Subsequently, training proceeded with the problems corresponding to such labels to strengthen the differential attributions. Participants who failed the test with labels D and E were then presented with an additional test with labels F and G. Phase 4 corresponded to the implementation of two protocols to reverse the previously trained attributions. Participants 1 to 10 received a general instruction and participants 11 to 15 received an illustrated instruction focused on problem difficulty. Each protocol was implemented in relation to three labels per category (H1, I1, J1, H2, I2 and J2), as detailed in the Procedure section. Finally, in Phase 5, the reversal of attributions and difficulty estimations were tested with two new labels per category (K1, L1, K2, L2). Several measures were collected throughout the procedure. Before training started, and upon reading each of the problems that would be trained subsequently (i.e., A1, B1, C1 and A2, B2, C2), participants were asked to rate the difficulty of each. During the attributions training (Phase 2), the attribution scale was repeatedly administered to assess the establishment of the proper attributions. Additionally, the difficulty scale was administered right after each problem was solved. When the training of attributions finished, participants were asked to report their attributions (internal/external) in relation to the six problems already trained. The attribution scale and the difficulty scale were again administered during the Transfer Test (Phase 3) and the Reversal Test (Phase 5).

5 Emergence and reversal of attributions 9 Procedure Participants were recruited through inclass announcements. The recruiters described the experiment as research on the improvement of problem-solving strategies, for which the students participation would be extremely helpful and very much appreciated. No money or credits were granted. Once in the lab, Experimenter 1 informed the participant that the session would last about 2 hours during which he or she would work on several paper and pencil tasks. After the participant signed the informed consent agreeing to participate and to be recorded, the experiment commenced. Phase 1 Pre-experimental categories assessment. In room 1, Experimenter 1 placed 24 testing cards face down the table, mixed them up, and said to the participant: These are the names of some problems we will work on in a while. Please put them face-up and create two piles of cards based on those that you think go together. No praise or corrective feedback was provided. All participants sorted the stimuli correctly and proceeded to the next phase after naming the two resulting categories (i.e., names of African countries, and female first names ). Phase 2 Training of attributions. Problems A1 to C1 served for the training of internal attributions and problems A2 to C2 served for the training of external attributions. The training trials of the internal and external attributions were inter-mixed to prevent order effects (A1, A2, B1, C1, B2, C2) and the sequence was kept constant across participants. Experimenter 1 placed the training card corresponding to problem A1 on the table, and said: This is problem María, please read and pay attention. Problem María read: What would you do if you were a doctor facing this dilemma? You have a patient with a tumour in the pancreas, and the only way to remove it is by applying a constant 6-ampere laser. You know, however, that a 5-ampere laser will destroy the pancreas tissue. What can you do to remove the tumour without damaging the tissue? ). Then, the experimenter asked the participant to fill out the difficulty scale and, subsequently, to solve the problem. After approximately 30 seconds without a correct answer, the experimenter introduced the first clue, connecting solution-relevant details that appeared distant and detached in the heading of the problem. The high difficulty of the problems made necessary the introduction of four scheduled cues, but the aim was to have the participant find the solution with the least number of cues. For example, the four clues for problem Maria were: first, the experimenter drew an imaginary picture of the tissue and tumour and pointed to a part of the picture as if it was the laser application while saying if you cannot use a 6 amp. laser, what can you do instead? The second cue described: You don t have to destroy the tumour by applying laser to the exact same location. Does this tell you something? The third cue detailed: You use one 4-amp. laser and it does not damage the tissue, nor the tumour. What can you do for the remaining amp. to reach and destroy the tumour? And the fourth cue described: By applying a 4-amp. laser at this location you will not damage the tissue but the tumour is not eliminated yet. What can you use in a different location to destroy the tumour then? If the participant did not solve the problem upon the first presentation of the first clue, this was repeated two more times. If the participant did not answer properly, the next clue was presented. If the participant did not provide the solution after presentation of the scheduled four clues three times each, she or he was dropped from further participation. As soon as the participant uttered the correct solution, the experimenter provided feedback about internal responsibility (by saying Good for you, you found the solution by yourself! ). Then, the participant went to the other room, where Experimenter 2 asked him/her how to solve the problem. After performing the solution correctly, the participant went back to Experimenter 1, and filled out the attribution scale and the difficulty scale in relation to problem A1. Next, Experimenter 1 placed the training card corresponding to problem A2 on the table, and said: This is problem Sudan, please, read and pay attention. Then, the experimenter asked the participant to fill out the difficulty scale and to solve the problem. After 30 seconds

6 10 J. Carmelo Visdómine, Carmen Luciano, Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas, Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez and José Ortega without any correct answer, the experimenter encouraged the participant to solve the problem while repeating parts of the heading of the problem. Neither clues nor other relevant information to solve the problem were provided. A total of four repetitions of non relevant information were scheduled. Once the four non-relevant repetitions were presented and the participant said I do not know the solution or similar, the experimenter presented the solution and provided feedback about external responsibility (by saying So, it has been me who finally told you the solution ). Then, the participant went to the other room where Experimenter 2 asked him/ her the solution to the problem and the needed steps to get to the solution. Since no participant found the solution by himself, he or she asked Experimenter 2 to teach them how to solve the problem step by step. After Experimenter 2 performed the problem correctly, the participant went back to Experimenter 1, and filled out the attribution scale and the difficulty scale in relation to that problem. Problems B1, C1, B2, C2 were then trained according to the same criteria. A complete transcript of the training protocols can be obtained by requesting it from the first author. When training was over, Experimenter 1 showed the participant all cards used during training, one at a time in a random sequence that varied across participants, and asked: Please recall, for this problem were you able to find out the solution, or was it me who had to tell you the solution? The mastery criterion to conclude that attributions had been correctly established and to continue on to the next phase was to respond to this question with internal and external attributions, depending on the problem, in two out of the three problems per category. Phase 3 Transfer test and re-training. Experimenter 3 tested for the emergence of attributions and difficulty ratings by presenting the testing cards corresponding to the problems D1, E1, D2 and E2, and saying: I will show you the name of some problems you will be working on in a while and will ask you a couple of questions. She then placed the D1 testing card on the table and asked: Do you think you will be able to find out the solution to this problem or will somebody else have to tell you the solution? Participants were given approximately 10 seconds to answer. No praise or corrective feedback was provided. Then, the experimenter asked the participant to estimate the difficulty of a problem that was labelled D1 by using the difficulty scale. The same procedure followed for E1, D2 and E2. When this procedure was finished, Experimenter 3 left the room, and Experimenter 1 came in. Regardless of the results in the transfer test, attributions were re-trained with four problems (two per category, D1, E1, D2, E2) according to the same criteria as in Phase 2. The re-training was intended to strengthen the attributions in those participants who showed differential emergence, and to employ multiple exemplar training with those participants who did not show emergence. Participants who did show differential emergence of attributions with problems D and E proceeded to the next phase. A new test with problems F and G was responded to by those who did not show differential emergence with problems D and E, and, then participants continued on to the next phase. Phase 4 Reversal intervention. Participants 1 to 10 received a general instruction and participants 11 to 15 received an illustrated instruction focused on problem difficulty. In the case of the general instruction, Experimenter 1 showed the testing card corresponding to problem H1 to the participant and said: This problem will be the opposite of the problems we have been working on until now. The experimenter placed this card face down the table, and presented the same instruction while showing the testing cards for problems I1, H2, I2, J1 and J2. In the case of the illustrated instruction focused on problems difficulty, the experimenter said the following: "We have worked on two kinds of problems so far: on the one hand, problems you have sooner or later solved by yourself; on the other hand, problems for which I had to provide you with the solution. This is similar to what happens in our daily life. There are situations in which we know what to do to be effective, and there are situations in which we need someone to help us. Imagine the following example: One of your friends asks you to take care of his pets and plants while he is out on a trip. You know how to handle and take

7 Emergence and reversal of attributions 11 care of his pets; it is very easy for you. But plants are a whole different story. You soon realize you are not familiar with the type of plants your friend has, and have no idea how to take care of them. Then, you ask another person to teach you how to do it. When your friend comes back, he is so happy with your job that the next time he leaves town he asks you to watch his pets and plants again. But the situation has now changed. Your friend has acquired new pets and plants. The new plants are less difficult than the old ones and you know how to take care of them, but the new pets require a kind of caring that you don t know how to provide and you need to ask someone for help. This situation is similar to what will happen with the problems you will face from now on." Phase 5 Reversal test. Experimenter 3 tested for the attributions and difficulty estimations with two new labels per category (K1, L1, K2, L2), presenting the same instructions as indicated in Phase 3. When finished, Experimenter 1 thanked the participant for cooperation and the experiment ended. Inter-observer Agreement Inter-observer agreement was calculated only for the treatment implementation during attributions training, because there were printed records of participants performance during the testing phases. All sessions were tape-recorded and two independent observers recorded the treatment implementation (i.e., the number of the clues needed in the case of internal attribution training and the four repetitions of non-relevant information in the case of external attribution training). Inter-observer agreement was calculated for each problem by dividing the smaller number of clues or repeated information by the larger number, and multiplying by 100%. The average interobserver agreement for all problems was 85%. Results Data concerning attributions during the training, the transfer tests and the reversal tests are first presented followed by the data on the variation of the difficulty estimations across the same tests. For the sake of fluency, the details of the protocol implementation during training (number of clues and number of repetitions of the same clue that each participant required to solve the problems in Category 1 and ratings in the attribution scale for the trained problems) are not detailed, but this information is available upon request. Descriptive analyses and two-tailed t-tests are presented below. All the variables on which two-tailed t-tests were conducted met the assumptions of normality, as revealed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov/Lilliefor test. Figure 2 shows participants attributions (external vs. internal) with regard to the actual TRAINED PROBLEMS (A, B, C) TRANSFER TEST (new problem labels: D, E) REVERSAL TEST (new problem labels: K, L) General instruction Illustrated instruct. Category 2 Category 1 * * * PARTICIPANTS External attributions Internal attributions * Participant showed differential emergence in the second test (F, G) Figure 2. Differential attributions (external vs. internal) on problems from Category 1 and Category 2 reported by all participants across experimental phases.

8 12 J. Carmelo Visdómine, Carmen Luciano, Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas, Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez and José Ortega problems (after training), and the novel problem labels (during the tests). After training, 14 out 15 participants (i.e., all except P.1) reported internal attributions on at least two out of three problems in Category 1 (A1, B1, C1) and external attributions on at least two out of three problems in Category 2 (A2, B2, C2). Participant 1 reported external attributions in relation to problems in both categories, and thus she was excluded from further participation. The criterion for the emergence of internal and external attributions for novel labels in the transfer test was to respond correctly to both labels per category included in the test (D1, E1, D2, E2). According to this criterion, 11 out of 14 participants showed internal attributions on the two tested labels in Category 1 (D1, E1) and external attributions on the two tested labels in Category 2 (D2, E2). After additional training with D1, E1, D2 and E2, the remaining three participants (P.3, P.8 and P.13) showed differential emergence of attributions with new labels (F1, G1, F2, and G2). Thus, after re-training, all 14 participants showed differential emergence of attributions (see Figure 2, transfer test). The criterion for reversal of the internal and external attributions in the reversal test was the same as that for emergence in the transfer test. Figure 2 shows that 7 of 9 participants receiving the general instruction reversed their attributions, that is, showed external attributions in relation to the problem labels for Category 1 (K1, L1) and internal attributions in relation to the problem labels for Category 2 (K2, L2). Four out of 5 participants exposed to the illustrated instruction showed a similar pattern. Figure 3 shows, for each participant, the estimated difficulty of problems in both categories across procedural phases. When participants were asked about the difficulty of the problems upon reading them (during Pre-test), 8 of 14 participants reported that problems A2, B2 and C2 were slightly more difficult than problems A1, B1 and C1 while 5 of 14 participants (P.3, P.4, P.5, P.8, P.14) rated problems in both categories as being similar in terms of difficulty. During training (Phase 2), the estimated difficulty of problems A1, B1, C1 decreased whereas the estimated difficulty of problems A2, B2 and C2 did not change or increased. That is, all but three participants reported that the three problems in Category 2 were considerably more difficult than the three problems in Category 1 (P.3 rated problems in Category 1 as more difficult than problems in Category 2, and P.7 and P.9 rated problems in both categories as similar). During the Transfer Test (Phase 3), all 14 participants scored the two problem labels for the Category 2 as more difficult than the two problem labels for the Category 1. Lastly, during the Reversal Test (Phase 5), 11 of Pre-test Training Transfer Test Reversal Test Figure 3. Individual difficulty ratings for problems from Category 1 and Category 2 across experimental phases.

9 Emergence and reversal of attributions 13 the 14 participants reversed their difficulty estimations, rating the problem labels for the Category 1 as more difficult than the problem labels for the Category 2. More specifically, 7 out of 9 participants receiving the direct instruction and 4 out of 5 participants receiving the illustrated instruction showed the reversal of the difficulty ratings. The average ratings of difficulty of problems in Category 1 and Category 2 across procedural phases are shown in Figure 4. Two-tailed t-tests confirmed the previous individual data of Figure 3. Thus, the difficulty ratings of problems A2, B2 and C2 at pre-test (before solving the problems) were significantly higher than the ratings of problems A1, B1, C1, t (13) = -2.78, p =.02. After training, the difficulty ratings of problems A1, B1, C1 decreased significantly, as compared with the same ratings at the Pre-test, t (13) = 2.71, p <.05. In addition, the training increased the difference in terms of estimated difficulty between problems in Category 1 and problems in Category 2, t (13) = -4.39, p <.01. During the Transfer Test, the difficulty ratings for problems D2 and E2 were significantly higher than the ratings for problems D1 and E1, t (13) = -6.94, p <.00. After implementing the reversal interventions, the difficulty ratings for problems K1 and L1 were significantly higher than the ratings for problems K2 and L2, t (13) = 2.11, p <.05. Mean difficulty Category 1 Pre-test A, B, C Training A, B, C Transfer test D, E Figure 4. Average difficulty ratings across experimental phases. Discussion Category 2 Reversal test K, L The attributions training with three members per category Except for one, all participants showed differential attributions for the two categories after training. These data are consistent with previous studies that had showed the establishment of differential attributions with problems of low difficulty (Luciano et al., 1998; Visdomine & Luciano, 2002), however, they extend the results with problems of higher difficulty and with adult participants. In addition, although the difficulty of problems was not directly addressed during training, the estimated difficulty of problems in Category 1 and Category 2 changed. That is, prior to training, participants rated the problems in both categories as highly difficult (mean ratings higher than 6.5), with problems in Category 2 rated as slightly more difficult than problems in Category 1. However, training of internal attributions decreased the estimated difficulty of problems in Category 1, whereas training of external attributions did not alter, and in some cases increased, the estimated difficulty of problems in Category 2. The current study represents an advance over previous studies which only measured the formation of attributions. The same conditions were shown useful not only for establishing differential attributions but for indirectly changing the estimated difficulty of problems. At the present time, the relevant interactions responsible for the establishment of differential attributions only might be hypothesized. One possibility is that the experimental procedures may have some elements in common with those interactions typically used in social practices to promote responsibility attributions. For example, it is typical that others provide internal feedback when we solve a problem without help. Contrarily, it is also typical that we were taught to ask for help in the case of facing a difficult problem. Although no information was collected in this study about the participants` experiences in problem-solving, it is highly likely that the conditions established in this study set up the occasion for different verbal statements (such as I did or I did not find a solution ) when finding or failing to find a solution to a problem. The indirect effect of training on the estimated difficulty of the problems might be explained in the same terms, according to the ubiquitous pre-experimental, socially established relations. For example, participants might relate not finding a solution to high problem difficulty and finding a solution to less problem dif-

10 14 J. Carmelo Visdómine, Carmen Luciano, Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas, Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez and José Ortega ficulty Further research could address this point by measuring the individual pre-experimental verbal relations established in this regard. Two specific aspects of the attribution training must be discussed. One issue relates to the problems selected per category. The other is the feedback provided by the experimenter. With respect to the first, problems for Category 1 were selected to be of a certain difficulty that the participants might easily experience that they were responsible for the solution, whereas problems for Category 2 were selected to be of sufficient difficulty that the participants might easy experience having no idea of the solution. This was deliberately done in order to increase the likelihood that participants would obtain the solution in one case and was very unlikely to do so in the other. This procedure ensured that differential attributions were mainly based on the contingencies involved in the problem-solving responses and not upon the differential feedback provided by the experimenter. We believe that this was a cornerstone of the current procedure. The other aspect to be discussed is the feedback provided by the experimenter after the participants response to the problem. The feedback provided was established to be confirmatory of the participant s successful or unsuccessful responses to a problem (i.e., either you found out the solution by yourself or I had to tell you the solution as appropriate). It might be argued that the effects reported in the current study were entirely due to these sentences. However, these sentences were not intended to instruct participants what and how to respond in subsequent trials, but to confirm their experience upon finding or not finding the solution by themselves. Nevertheless, one possible limitation of the current study is that it prevents us from knowing the differential impact of the variables involved in the training (i.e., problem difficulty, participant success and experimenter feedback) on the attribution effects being examined. Future research could examine to what extent it may have been the confirmatory feedback component of the treatment and the contingencies involved in the problem-solving responses (i.e., oneself being successful or not in problem solving) that exerted instructional control on participants responding. The transfer of attributions and estimated difficulty to un-trained members of the categories All participants who showed differential attributions during training showed the same respective differential attributions and difficulty estimations with respect to the novel labels for problem-solving in both categories. The explanation for such an effect might be focused on the functional classes formed with the labels and the name of the category to which they pertained. According to this, training with three specific labels per category, although never with the name of the category itself, is the most plausible reason for most participants to report external or internal attributions (and the corresponding greater or lesser difficulty) when asked for a novel label. It might be argued that the differential transfer of attributions occurred based on physical similarity or stimulus generalization of labels (Fields, Reeve, Adams, & Verhave, 1991; Sidman & Tailby, 1982). However, this is unlikely to the extent that some vowels and consonants were present in the names of both categories, and the transfer of differential attributions still occurred. It might also be argued that the emergence of attributions occurred because all stimuli in both categories were presented together during the initial assessment of categories (Phase 1). However, although no specific relation among all members was explicitly trained, the training procedure itself, involving the same contingencies for three members per category, was sufficient to enhance the pre-experimental category as a functional class. We are aware that the use of pre-experimental categories, although the most suitable option in the present study given the large number of stimuli needed per class, precludes a claim that derived relational processes (e.g., equivalence relations and a derived transfer of functions) are involved in the current effects. However, it is unlikely that participants pre-experimentally learned to relate directly all the woman labels as members of the same category and the same with respect to the African countries labels. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the transfer effects reported in the current study are due to the indirect emergence of functions to untrained stimuli.

11 Emergence and reversal of attributions 15 Further research should address this limitation by experimentally establishing equivalence relations as was the case in the first study in this area (Luciano et al., 1998). Lastly, the possibility that experimenter-expectancy effects (i.e., subtle cues or signals from the experimenters indicating the participants the expected performances) was at play in the transfer test seems unlikely because the use of different experimenters implementing the training and testing procedures blocked this effect (e.g. Callaway, Nowicki & Duke, 1980). Nonetheless, a double-blind blocking design would better control for this possibility. The reversal of attributions and estimated difficulty of un-trained members of the categories The second and main aim of the present study was to demonstrate a reversal of the attributions and difficulty estimations for novel labels. In one condition, 7 out of 9 participants reversed both aspects after the presentation of an instruction including the opposition cue the opposite of applied to this problem and the temporal cue will now be applied to specific names but not to the category itself. This way, the opposition contextual cue re-framed the attribution functions previously given to both functional classes and reversed these attribution functions (and the corresponding difficulty) for the novel exemplars presented to the participant. In the other condition, 5 participants were presented with an illustrated instruction focused on the problems difficulty. Similar to the general instruction, the illustrated instruction was effective in reversing the attributions and difficulty estimations for novel problem labels for 4 out of 5 participants. This analogy incorporating an example of changing conditions in daily life seems to have transformed the functions of new problem labels. In sum, both reversal interventions (i.e., the general instruction and the illustrated instruction) have yielded changes in attribution and difficulty estimations of novel untrained problems. This occurred in spite of no change in contingencies to those problems previously receiving attribution training. However, this occurred via purely verbal means, that is, for the relation between these novel untrained problem labels and those problems previously trained. The reversal of functions in humans has been shown in areas other than attributions. A number of other studies in the behavioural literature have showed that transfer effects, once established, were reversible within the experimental context (Cahill et al., 2007; Grey & Barnes, 1996). Some applied implications of these findings for educational practice could be drawn. For example, teachers should know that the effect of their feedback about the responsibility of students performance might go far beyond that specific performance. It might affect with simple instructions or metaphorical examples the self-concept in relation to novel -although related- situations. More importantly although it was not the focus of the present study-, the effect of their feedback might extend and alter- the students` actions. That is, the self-concept might function as a self-rule and the students might act according to their individual rule-following histories. Further research is required to address these applied implications. In summary, this study shows some of the conditions under which attributions may emerge and change in relation to novel problems, extending previous research (Luciano et al., 1998; Visdómine & Luciano, 2002). This study is the first to show the indirect impact of attributions training on difficulty estimations. This is also the first study showing the reversal of attributions and difficulty estimations, via a general instruction or an illustrated instruction in novel untrained problems. All in all, future research is needed to better understand the conditions under which people develop and change their self-referred perceptions without any previous experience with a particular problem. And, more importantly, further research should examine the conditions under which self-referred perceptions to new problems impact the person s behaviour towards such problems. References Cahill, J., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Rodríguez-Valverde, M., Luciano, C., & Smeets, P.S. (2007). The derived transfer and reversal of mood functions through

12 16 J. Carmelo Visdómine, Carmen Luciano, Sonsoles Valdivia-Salas, Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez and José Ortega equivalence relations: II. The Psychological Record, 57, Callaway, J. M., Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1980). Overt expression of experimenter expectancies, interaction with participant expectancies, and performance on a psychomotor task. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Outcome expectancy, locus of attribution for expectancy, and self-directed attention as determinants of evaluations and performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, Cossu, M. (1990). Juegos de la mente [Mind games]. Madrid: Pirámide. Dougher, M. J. & Markham, M. R. (1996) Stimulus classes and the untrained acquisition of stimulus functions. Advances in Psychology, 117, Feather, N. T. (1961). The relationship of persistence at a task to expectation of success and achievement related motives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Adams, B. J., & Verhave, T. (1991). Stimulus generalization and equivalence classes: A model for natural categories. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, Grey, I. M., & Barnes, D. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and attitudes. The Psychological Record, 46, Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A postskinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers. Hayes, S. C. & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations and a behavior analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, James, W. H., & Rotter, J. B. (1958). Partial and 100% reinforcement under chance and skill conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, Kammer, D. (1983). Depression, attributional style, and failure generalization. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, Le Foll, D., Rascle, O., & Higgins, N. C. (2008) Attributional feedback-induced changes in functional and dysfunctional attributions, expectations of success, hopefulness, and short-term persistence in a novel sport. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 9, Luciano, M. C., Gómez, I., Molina, F. & Zaldívar, F. (1998, May). A radical perspective on the development of self-attributional styles and rulegoverned behavior. Paper presented at the 24 th Annual Convention of ABA, Orlando, USA. Markham, R. & Markham, M. (2002) On the role of covarying functions in stimulus class formation and transfer of functions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. New York: Freeman and Company. Rotter, J. B. (Ed.). (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement [Entire issue]. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1. Rychlak, J. F. & Eacker, J. N. (1962). The effects of anxiety, delay and reinforcement on generalized expectancies. Journal of Personality, 30, Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, Summers, G. J. (1988). Juegos de ingenio 2 [Mind games 2]. Barcelona: Martínez Roca. Tryon, W. W. & Misurell, J. R (2008) Dissonance induction and reduction: A possible principle and connectionist mechanism for why therapies are effective. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, Visdómine, J. C. & Luciano, M. C. (2002). Formation of locus of control through transfer of functions. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 2, Vreven, R. & Nuttin, J. R. (1976). Frequency perception of successes as a function of results previously obtained by others and by oneself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,