The Psychological Record

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 195–208 | Cite as

Controlling Relations in Stimulus Equivalence Classes of Preschool Children and Individuals with Down Syndrome

  • Priscila C. Grisante
  • Julio C. de Rose
  • William J. McIlvane
Original Article

Abstract

We evaluated emergent stimulus-stimulus relations after two different training procedures. Participants were five typically developing preschool children and three individuals with Down syndrome. Experiment 1 used two-comparison matching to sample (MTS) to establish AB and BC relations. Experiment 2 used two-comparison and blank comparison MTS, each on 50 % of training trials, to establish AB and BC relations. In both experiments, tests for emergent relations (AC, CA) were conducted to assess equivalence class formation. In Experiment 2, class expansion was subsequently assessed after CD training. All participants showed positive equivalence test outcomes. Seven showed class expansion. After class formation tests in both studies, probe tests were conducted for select and reject relations in baseline relations. Initial results were somewhat variable, but became more consistent after class expansion.

Keywords

Select and reject relations Preschool children Down syndrome Matching to sample 

References

  1. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. The Psychological Record, 47, 309–320.Google Scholar
  2. Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effect of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437–462.Google Scholar
  3. Augustson, K. G., & Dougher, M. J. (1991). Teaching conditional discrimination to young children: some methodological successes and failures. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 9, 21–24.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes-Holmes, D., Staunton, C., Whelan, R., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Commins, S., Walsh, D., et al. (2005). Derived stimulus relations, semantic priming, and event-related potentials: testing a behavioral theory of semantic networks. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84, 417–433. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.78-04.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2009). Assessment of the relatedness of equivalent stimuli through a semantic differential. The Psychological Record, 59, 563–590.Google Scholar
  6. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2012). Equivalent stimuli are more strongly related after training with delayed matching than after simultaneous matching: a study using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). The Psychological Record, 62, 41–54.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 101–114. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.74-101.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrigan, P. F., & Sidman, M. (1992). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: a theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58(1), 183–204. doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-183.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1965). The complex discriminated operant: studies of matching to sample and related problems. In D. I. Mostofski (Ed.), Stimulus generalization (pp. 284–329). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Rose, J. C. (1996). Controlling factors in conditional discriminations and tests of equivalence. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 253–277). Amsterdam: North Holland (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Rose, J. C., Hidalgo, M., & Vasconcellos, M. (2013). Controlling relations in baseline conditional discriminations as determinants of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 63, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dube, W. V. (1991). Computer software for stimulus control research with Macintosh computers. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 9, 28–39.Google Scholar
  14. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1995). Stimulus-reinforcer relations and emergent matching to sample. The Psychological Record, 45, 591–612.Google Scholar
  15. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent behavior and stimulus class. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in human and animals (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: North Holland (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody vocabulary test–revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  17. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1990). The effects of nodality on the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 345–358. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.53-345.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, G. (1990). Differences in development of visual and auditory-visual equivalence relations. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95, 260–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Haimson, B., Wilkinson, K. M., Rosenquist, C., Ouimet, C., & McIlvane, W. J. (2009). Electrophysiological correlates of stimulus equivalence processes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 245–256. doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-245.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  21. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241. doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.56-185.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kato, O. M., de Rose, J. C., & Faleiros, P. B. (2008). Topography of responses in conditional discrimination influences formation of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 58, 245–267.Google Scholar
  23. Lazar, R. M., Davis-Lang, D., & Sanches, L. (1984). The formation of visual stimulus equivalences in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 251–266. doi:10.1901/jeab.1984.41-251.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lipkens, G., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of derived stimulus relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McIlvane, W. J. (2012). Simple and complex discrimination learning. In G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA handbook of behavior analysis (pp. 129–163). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  26. McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (1992). Stimulus control shaping and stimulus control topographies. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 89–94.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: foundations and extensions. Behavior Analyst, 26, 195–213.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McIlvane, W. J., Withstandley, J. K., & Stoddard, L. T. (1984). Positive and negative stimulus relations in severely retarded individuals’ conditional discrimination. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Munson, L. C., King, K. A. J., de Rose, J. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1987). Controlling relations in conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 187–208. doi:10.1901/jeab.1987.48-187.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McIlvane, W. J., Serna, R. W., Dube, W. V., & Stromer, R. L. (2000). Stimulus control topography coherence and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In J. Leslie & D. E. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 85–110). Reno NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  31. O’Donnell, J., & Saunders, K. J. (2003). Equivalence relations in individuals with language limitations and mental retardation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 131–157. doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.80-131.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pilgrim, C., Jackson, J., & Galizio, M. (2000). Acquisition of arbitrary conditional discriminations by young normally developing children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 177–193. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.73-177.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Saunders, R. R., & McEntee, J. E. (2004). Increasing probability of stimulus equivalence with adults with mild mental retardation. The Psychological Record, 54, 423–435.Google Scholar
  34. Saunders, K., & Spradlin, J. E. (1989). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: the effect of training the component simple discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 1–12. doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.52-1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Saunders, K., & Spradlin, J. E. (1990). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: the development of generalized skills. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 239–250. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-239.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Saunders, K., & Spradlin, J. E. (1993). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded subjects: programming acquisition and learning set. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 571–585. doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.60-571.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Saunders, R. R., Drake, K. M., & Spradlin. (1999). Equivalence class establishment, expansion and modification in preschool children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 195–214. doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.71-195.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Sidman, M. (1979). Remarks. Behaviorism, 7, 123–126.Google Scholar
  39. Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.Google Scholar
  41. Sidman, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In L. R. Hayes & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior: Proceedings of the Third International Institute on Verbal Relations. Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research history. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  43. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000-74-127.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Establishing equivalence classes in preschool children with one-to-many and many-to-one training protocols. Behavioral Processes, 69, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). Auditory-visual and visual-visual equivalence relations in children. The Psychological Record, 55, 483–503.Google Scholar
  47. Stevenson, H. W. (1973). Children's learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  48. Stromer, R., & Mackay, H. A. (1996). Naming and the formation of stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  49. Stromer, R., & Osborne, J. G. (1982). Control of adolescents’arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 329–348. doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-329.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Touchette, P. E. (1971). Transfer of stimulus control: measuring the moment of transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 347–354. doi:10.1901/jeab.1971.15-347.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Valenti, S. S. (1985). Children’s preference for novelty in selective learning: developmental stability or change? Journal of the Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 406–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeaman, D. (1976). The ubiquity of novelty-familiarity (habituation/) effects. In T. J. Tighe & R. N. Leaton (Eds.), Habituation: Perspectives from child development, animal behavior, and neurophysiology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priscila C. Grisante
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julio C. de Rose
    • 1
    • 2
  • William J. McIlvane
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Departamento de PsicologiaUniversidade Federal de São CarlosSão CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e EnsinoSão CarlosBrazil
  3. 3.University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations