Abstract
Previous experiments have investigated the function of using pictures or meaningful stimuli on equivalence class formation. For example, when attempting to form three 5-member classes (A→B→C→D→E), findings have shown that pictures used as C stimuli have increased the probability of producing equivalence class formation relative to when all stimuli in the stimulus set are abstract. The present experiment extends the literature by examining whether the formation of equivalence classes varies as a function of having three (C1, C2, and C3), two (C1 and C2), or one (C1) stimulus as a picture in a set of abstract stimuli. Hence, 60 participants were randomly assigned to 4 different experimental groups: 0-picture group or abstract group (ABS), 1-picture group (1PIC), 2-pictures group (2PIC), and 3-pictures group (3PIC). In addition, we had a reference group with abstract shapes only. The findings from the present experiment showed that 2 of 15 participants in the ABS formed classes. Also, two of 15 participants in the 1PIC formed classes, 8 of 15 participants in the 2PIC formed equivalence classes, and 12 of 15 members in the 3PIC formed classes. The statistical analysis supported the notion that equivalence class formation is a function of the number of pictures in a potential equivalence class.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arntzen, E. (2004). Probability of equivalence formation: Familiar stimuli and training sequence. The Psychological Record, 54, 275–291. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=tpr.
Arntzen, E., Braaten, L. F., Lian, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2011). Response-to-sample requirements in conditional discrimination procedures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 505–522. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434398.
Arntzen, E., Granmo, S., & Fields, L. (2016). The relation between sorting tests and matching-to-sample tests in the formation of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record. doi:10.1007/s40732-016-0209-9.
Arntzen, E., & Hansen, S. (2011). Training structures and the formation of equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 483–503. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434397.
Arntzen, E., & Lian, T. (2010). Trained and derived relations with pictures as nodes. The Psychological Record, 60, 659–677. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=tpr.
Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2014). Identity and delay functions of meaningful stimuli: Enhanced equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 64, 349–360. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0066-3.
Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2015). Enhancing responding in accordance with stimulus equivalence by the delayed and relational properties of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 524–541. doi:10.1002/jeab.152.
Arntzen, E., Norbom, A., & Fields, L. (2015). Sorting: An alternative measure of class formation? The Psychological Record, 65, 615–625. doi:10.1007/s40732-015-0132-5.
Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46B, 187–214. doi:10.1080/14640749308401085.
Cowley, B. J., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D. (1992). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach name-face matching to adults with brain injuries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 461–475. doi:10.1901/jaba.1992.25-461.
Dickins, D. W. (2011). Transitive inference in stimulus equivalence and serial learning. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 523–555. Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434399.
Dickins, D. W. (2015). A simpler route to stimulus equivalence? A replication and further exploration of a “simple discrimination training procedure” (Canovas, Debert and Pilgrim 2014). The Psychological Record, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s40732-015-0134-3.
Dickins, D. W., Bentall, R. P., & Smith, A. B. (1993). The role of individual stimulus names in the emergence of equivalence relations: The effects of interpolated paired-associates training of discordant associates between names. The Psychological Record, 43, 713–724.
Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2001). Supplemental measures and derived stimulus relations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 19, 8–12. Retrieved from http://www.eahb.org/1/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Dymond-Rehfeldt.pdf.
Eilifsen, C., & Arntzen, E. (2009). On the role of trial types in tests for stimulus equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 187–202. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2009.11434318.
Eilifsen, C., & Arntzen, E. (2011). Single-subject withdrawal designs in delayed matching-to-sample procedures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 152–172. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434361.
Ferrari, C., de Rose, J. C., & McIlvane, W. J. (2008). A comparison of exclusion and trial-and-error procedures: Primary and secondary effects. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 29, 9–16. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853183/.
Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 163–181. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.97-163.
Fields, L., Arntzen, E., & Moksness, M. (2014). Stimulus sorting: A quick and sensitive index of equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 64, 487–498. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0034-y.
Fienup, D. M., & Dixon, M. R. (2006). Acquisition and maintenance of visual-visual and visual-olfactory equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6, 87–98. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2006.11434266.
Green, G. (1990). Differences in development of visual and auditory-visual equivalence relations. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 95, 260–270.
Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1542&context=tpr.
Hove, O. (2003). Differential probability of equivalence class formation following a one-to-many versus a many-to-one training structure. The Psychological Record, 53, 617–634. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1501&context=tpr.
Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. D. A., & Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Naming and categorization in young children: Vocal tact training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 527–549. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.31-04.
Mackay, H. A., Wilkinson, K. M., Farrell, C., & Serna, R. W. (2011). Evaluating merger and intersection of equivalence classes with one member in common. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 87–105. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.96-87.
McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 195–213. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22478506.
Nartey, R. K., Arntzen, E., & Fields, L. (2014). Two discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli that enhance equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 64, 777–789. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0072-5.
Nartey, R. K., Arntzen, E., & Fields, L. (2015a). Enhancement of equivalence class formation by pretraining discriminative functions. Learning & Behavior, 43, 20–31. doi:10.3758/s13420-014-0158-6.
Nartey, R. K., Arntzen, E., & Fields, L. (2015b). Training order and structural location of meaningful stimuli: Effects on equivalence class formation. Learning & Behavior, 43, 342–353. doi:10.3758/s13420-015-0183-0.
Nedelcu, R. I., Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2015). Conditional discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli and enhanced equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 349–360. doi:10.1002/jeab.141.
Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations or a relation of classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 173–195). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
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. doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.
Sigurdardottir, Z. G., Mackay, H. A., & Green, G. (2012). Stimulus equivalence, generalization, and contextual stimulus control in verbal classes. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 3–29. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363409/.
Smeets, P. M., Dymond, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2000). Instructions, stimulus equivalence, and stimulus sorting: Effects of sequential testing arrangements and a default option. The Psychological Record, 50, 339–354. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1401&context=tpr.
Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analysis of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659. doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.65-643.
Stikeleather, G., & Sidman, M. (1990). An instance of spurious equivalence relations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 1–11. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748619/pdf/anverbbehav00037-0003.pdf.
Travis, R. W., Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2014). Discriminative functions and over-training as class-enhancing determinants of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 47–65. doi:10.1002/jeab.91.
Wilkinson, K. M., Dube, W. V., & McIllvane, W. J. (1998). Fast mapping and exclusion (emergent matching) in developmental language, behavior analysis, and animal cognition research. The Psychological Record, 48, 407–422. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=tpr.
Wilkinson, K. M., Rosenquist, C., & McIlvane, W. J. (2009). Exclusion learning and emergent symbolic category formation in individuals with severe language impairments and intellectual disabilities. The Psychological Record, 59, 187–206. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=tpr.
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125–144. doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-125.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This research was funded by Oslo and Akershus University College.
Conflict of Interest
The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mensah, J., Arntzen, E. Effects of Meaningful Stimuli Contained in Different Numbers of Classes on Equivalence Class Formation. Psychol Rec 67, 325–336 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0215-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0215-y