The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 105–128 | Cite as

Selection-Based Versus Topography-Based Responding: An Important Distinction for Stimulus Equivalence?

Article

Abstract

English-speaking subjects were taught 16 English-French word pairs. Within any given trial, one word from each pair was presented; for eight items, subjects were to select its counterpart from an array of words in the other language (selection-based training), and for the other eight items there was no array and subjects were to type its counterpart (topography-based training). In Experiment 1, all items were trained from French to English, and later, interspersed no-feedback probe trials tested for the emergence of the reversed relations. Half of the eight selection-trained items were tested in the selection-based mode and half were tested in the topography-based mode; similarly, half of the eight topography-trained items were tested in the selection-based mode and half were tested in the topography-based mode. On the first reversal test trial, all 7 subjects scored 100% correct for the selection-tested items; in contrast, 5 of the 7 subjects scored 0% or near 0% correct for the topography-tested items, which improved to varying degrees with repeated testing. The training response mode affected neither acquisition rate nor reversal test trial performance. In Experiment 2, all items were tested in the topography-based mode only, and subjects were exposed to nine consecutive reversal test trials prior to interspersed probe testing. Improved accuracy across reversal test trials was not observed until the conditions of probe testing were instated, an indication that reexposure to the trained relations was a crucial component of delayed emergence. In Experiment 3, all items were trained from English to French, resulting in subjects typing a familiar rather than an unfamiliar word on reversal test trials. Accuracy on reversal test trials was considerably better than in the previous two experiments. We discuss the implications of our findings for stimulus equivalence research.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Blough, D. S. (1959). Delayed matching in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 151–160.Google Scholar
  3. Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Ex-perimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29-45.Google Scholar
  4. Catania, A. C. (1992). Learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Cuvo, A. J., & Riva, M. T. (1980). Generalization and transfer between comprehension and production: A comparison of retarded and nonretarded persons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 315–331.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldman, S. M., & Underwood, B. J. (1957). Stimulus recall following paired associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 11–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gatch, M. B., & Osborne, J. G. (1989). Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 369–378.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall, G. A., & Chase, P. N. (1991). The relationship between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 107–119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes, S. C, & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1383–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Home, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jantz, E. M., & Underwood, B. J. (1958). R-S learning as a function of meaningfulness and degree of S-R learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 174–179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kausler, D. H. (1974). Psychology of verbal learning and memory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lane, S. D., & Critchfield, T. S. (1996). Verbal self-reports of emergent relations in a stimulus equivalence procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 355–374.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Lazar, R. M., Davis-Lang, D., & Sanchez, L. (1984). The formation of visual stimulus equivalences in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 251–266.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, V. L. (1981). Prepositional phrases spoken and heard. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 227–242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, V. L., & Pegler, A. M. (1982). Effects on spelling of training children to read. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 311–322.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Lipkens, R., Hayes, S. C, & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowe, C. E, & Home, P. J. (1996). Reflections on naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 315–340.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynch, D. C, & Cuvo, A. J. (1995). Stimulus equivalence instruction of fraction-decimal relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 115–126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Mandell, C, & Sheen, V (1994). Equivalence class formation as a function of the pronounceability of the sample stimulus. Behavioural Process, 32, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markham, M. R., & Dougher, M. J. (1993). Compound stimuli in emergent stimulus relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 529–542.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Michael, J. (1985). Two kinds of verbal behavior plus a possible third. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 3, 2–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moerk, E. L. (1990). Three-term contingency patterns in mother-child verbal interactions during first language acquisition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 293–305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, S. E. (1972). In search of associative symmetry. In C. P. Duncan, L. Sechrest, & A. W. Melton (Eds.), Human memory: Festschrift for Benton J. Underwood (pp. 133–153). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  27. Parsons, J. A., Taylor, D. C., & Joyce, T. M. (1981). Precurrent self-prompting operants in children: “Remembering.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 253–266.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Pierce, W. D., & Epling, W. F. (1995). Behavior analysis and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Poison, D. A. D., Grabavac, D., & Parsons, J. A. (1997). Intraverbal stimulus-response reversibility: Fluency, familiarity effects, and implications for stimulus equivalence. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 19–40.Google Scholar
  30. Poison, D. A. D., & Parsons, J. A. (1994). Precurrent contingencies: Behavior reinforced by altering reinforcement probability for other behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poison, D. A. D., Wong, W. K., Parsons, J. A., & Grabavac, D. M. (1991, May). Using Think Fast to examine variables affecting the efficacy of flash card instruction. Poster presented at the 17th annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  32. Potter, B., & Brown, D. L. (1997). Review of studies examining the nature of selection-based and topography-based verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 85–104.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1996). Naming and equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 312–314.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Shafer, E. (1993). Teaching topography-based and selection-based verbal behavior to developmentally disabled individuals: Some considerations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 117–133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  38. Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalencies in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 515–523.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sidman, M., Cresson, O., Jr., & Willson-Morris, M. (1974). Acquisition of matching to sample via mediated transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 261–273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Sidman, M., Willson-Morris, M., & Kirk, B. (1986). Matching-to-sample procedures and the development of equivalence relations: The role of naming. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skinner, B. F (1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Stromer, R., Mcllvane, W J., & Sema, R. W (1993). Complex stimulus control and equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 585–598.Google Scholar
  46. Sundberg, C. T, & Sundberg, M. L. (1990). Comparing topography-based verbal behavior with stimulus selection-based verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 31–41.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Wollen, K. A., & Allison, T. S. (1968). Latency and frequency of S-R and R-S associations as a function of recall time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 895–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wraikat, R., Sundberg, C. T, & Michael, J. (1991). Topography-based and selection-based verbal behavior: A further comparison. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 1–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125–144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations