Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 309–320 | Cite as

Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design

  • Erik ArntzenEmail author
  • Per Holth
Article

Abstract

The present study investigated differential effects of training design on probability of an equivalence outcome. Forty normal adults were assigned to four different groups. Subjects in the first three groups were exposed to a C-A equivalence test directly following linear series (AB and BC), many-to-one (AB and CB), or one-to-many (BA and BC) training, respectively, while the subjects in the fourth group, following linear series training, were exposed to a symmetry test before the C-A test. Three comparison stimuli were used throughout the experiment to minimize effects of control by negative comparisons. Number of subjects showing equivalence were highest following one-to-many training and lowest following linear series training. Several previously suggested explanations of the differential effects of training design are discussed and shown to be unsatisfactory.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BARNES, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.Google Scholar
  2. DUGDALE, N., & LOWE, C. F. (1990). Naming and stimulus equivalence. In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 115–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. EIKESETH, S., & SMITH, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes in high-functioning autistic children: The role of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 123–133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. FIELDS, L., & VERHAVE, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. FIELDS, L., VERHAVE, T., & FATH, S. (1984). Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 143–157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. HORNE, P. J., & LOWE, F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. MARR, J. (1996). A mingled yarn. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 19–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. SAUNDERS, K. J., SAUNDERS, R. R., WILLIAMS, D. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1993). An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: Extending the analysis of equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 725–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. SAUNDERS, R. R., WACHTER, J. A., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. SIDMAN, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.Google Scholar
  11. SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. SPRADLIN, J. E., & SAUNDERS, R. R. (1986). The development of stimulus classes using match-to-sample procedures: Sample classification versus comparison classification. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. URCUIOLI, P. C., & ZENTALL, T. V. (1993). The test of comparison-stimulus substitutability following OTM matching by pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 745–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. URCUIOLI, P. C., ZENTALL, T. V., & DEMARSE, T. (1995). Transfer to derived sample-comparison relations by pigeons following many-to-one versus one-to-many matching with identical training relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46B, 158–178.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations