Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of Stimulus Discriminability on Discrimination Acquisition and Stimulus-Equivalence Formation: Assessing the Utility of a Multiple Schedule

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A multiple schedule was used to examine the effects of stimulus discriminability on discrimination acquisition in baseline and subsequent stimulus-equivalence formation. Six college students were exposed in two experiments to more or less discriminable stimuli across multiple-schedule components (reinforcer magnitude was unequal and equal in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). For five of the six participants, slower baseline acquisition occurred with the less discriminable stimuli. After high accuracy scores occurred in both components for several sessions, stimulus equivalence was tested across multiple sessions. In terms of accuracy, delayed emergence of equivalence formation only occurred in the component with the less discriminable stimuli for three of the five participants who previously displayed differential acquisition. For one of these other two participants, a 2-week follow-up assessment revealed that stimulus equivalence was disrupted only in the component previously correlated with the slower acquisition period. In terms of response latency, slower responding was obtained in the component with the less discriminable stimuli for all six participants, particularly during initial equivalence testing. These results demonstrate that stimulus discriminability can influence both discrimination acquisition and stimulus-equivalence formation. The results also support the utility of examining stimulus-equivalence formation using a multiple schedule.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arntzen, E., & Lian, T. (2010). Trained and derived relations with pictures versus abstract stimuli as nodes. The Psychological Record, 60, 659–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentall, R. P., Jones, R. M., & Dickins, D. (1998). Control over emergent relations during the formation of equivalence classes: response error and latency data for 5-member classes. The Psychological Record, 49, 93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catania, A. C., Horne, P., & Lowe, C. F. (1989). Transfer of function across members of an equivalence class. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 99–110.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doughty, A. H., Cirino, S., Mayfield, K. H., da Silva, S. P., Okouchi, H., & Lattal, K. A. (2005). Effects of behavioral history on resistance to change. The Psychological Record, 55, 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doughty, A. H., Kastner, R. M., & Bismark, B. D. (2011). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations: replication and extensions. Behavioural Processes, 86, 152–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V. (1991). Computer software for stimulus control research with Macintosh computers. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior, 9, 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent behavior and stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). North Holland: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, L., & Moss, P. (2007). Stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: interaction of nodality and contingency. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, G., & Saunders, R. R. (1998). Stimulus equivalence. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 229–262). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griffee, K., & Dougher, M. J. (2002). Contextual control of stimulus generalization and stimulus equivalence in hierarchical categorization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 433–447.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane, W. J., Serna, R. W., Dube, W. V., & Stromer, R. (2000). Stimulus control topography coherence and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 85–110). Reno: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa, E. (1999). Acquired equivalence of discriminative stimuli following two concurrent discrimination learning tasks as a function of overtraining in rats. The Psychological Record, 49, 327–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevin, J. A. (1992). An integrative model for the study of behavioral momentum. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 301–316.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nevin, J. A., & Grace, R. C. (2000). Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 73–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Conner, J., Rafferty, A., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). The role of verbal behavior, stimulus nameability, and familiarity on the equivalence performances of autistic and normally developing children. The Psychological Record, 59, 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perone, M. (2003). Negative effects of positive reinforcement. Behavior Analyst, 26, 1–14.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perone, M., & Courtney, K. (1992). Fixed-ratio pausing: joint effects of past reinforcer magnitude and stimuli correlated with upcoming magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 33–46.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations or a correlation of classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 173–195). North Holland: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, R. R., Wachter, J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 5–22.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tomanari, G. Y., Sidman, M., Rubio, A. R., & Dube, W. V. (2006). Equivalence classes with requirements for short response latencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 349–369.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., McHugh, L. A., & Whelan, R. (2012). A test of the discrimination account in equivalence class formation. Learning and Motivation, 43, 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267–281.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Portions of this research were supported by the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities program at the College of Charleston through the Summer Undergraduate Research with Faculty program. Some of this research was presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Association for Behavior Analysis, Wilmington, NC (October, 2009), and at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, San Antonio, TX (May, 2010). The authors thank Vanessa Minervini and Melanie Pasheluk for their contributions to this research. Rebecca Kastner now is at the University of Alabama.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam H. Doughty.

Appendix

Appendix

The following instructions were provided to each participant before the first session of Condition 1 in each experiment:

Welcome to our study on trial-and-error learning! In this study, you will work alone on the computer. The computer will present you with many trials and alternate between red and yellow background screens. On each trial, you will be presented with seven items: one item in the center of the screen surrounded by six items. [In Experiment 2, it noted that there were five items, one in the center surrounded by four others]. Click the mouse over any one of the surrounding items that you think “goes with” the item in the center, and one of two things will occur: (1) oval-shaped stars will appear or (2) the screen will darken. If stars appear then you earned 1 cent if the screen was yellow and 3 cents if the screen was red. [In Experiment 2, it noted that the participant earned 1.5 cents in each component]. If the screen darkened, then you earned 0 cents. You will receive many sessions each day, and each one will last between 20 and 30 min. The computer will tell you when the session is over. Good Luck!

The following instructions were provided to each participant before the single session in Condition 2 in each experiment:

In your next session, there never will be any stars or dark screen. The computer still will record whether your choice is correct or incorrect. You still will receive 1 or 3 cents for each correct choice. [In Experiment 2, it noted that the participant still earned 1.5 cents in each component]. The computer will still tell you that the session is over, and at the end of the session you will be told how much money you earned. Good Luck!”

The following instructions were provided to each participant before the first session of Condition 3 in each experiment (as well as before the third session in Condition 3 in Experiment 2 for Participants 6 and 7):

In your next session, there never will be any stars or dark screen. The computer still will record whether your choice is correct or incorrect. You still will receive 1 or 3 cents for each correct choice. [In Experiment 2, it noted that the participant still earned 1.5 cents in each component]. And, the computer still will tell you that the session is over. The difference in this session is that you will not be told how much money you earned; instead, at the end of the study we will tell you how much you earned in this session. Good Luck!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doughty, A.H., Brierley, K.P., Eways, K.R. et al. Effects of Stimulus Discriminability on Discrimination Acquisition and Stimulus-Equivalence Formation: Assessing the Utility of a Multiple Schedule. Psychol Rec 64, 287–300 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0001-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0001-7

Keywords

Navigation