Abstract
The learning of the relations between discriminative stimuli, choice actions, and their outcomes can be characterized as conditional discriminative choice learning. Research shows that the technique of presenting unique outcomes for specific cued choices leads to faster and more accurate learning of such relations and has great potential to be developed into a training and pedagogical tool to help individuals with and without learning challenges better learn complex discrimination problems. We present a brief historical account of this technique, a theoretical and empirical analysis, and specific examples of the application of this training technique in everyday discrimination problems and in several traditional school subject areas. We conclude with the iteration that cognitive scientists and educational researchers need not overlook basic associative mechanisms that may be fundamental in subserving complex learning and memory processes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BOSTOW, D. E., KRITCH, K. M., & TOMPKINS, B. F. (1995). Computers and pedagogy: Replacing telling with interactive computer-programmed instruction. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27, 297–300.
BRODIGAN, D. L., & PETERSON, G. B. (1976). Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity. Animal Learning & Behavior, 4, 121–124.
CLARKE, J. I. (1999). Time-in: When time-out doesn’t work. Seattle, WA: Parenting Press.
DE CORTE, E. (2004). Mainstreams and perspectives in research on learning (mathematics) from instruction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 279–310.
DE ROSE, J. C., DE SOUZA, D. G., & HANNA, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling: Stimulus equivalence and generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 451–469.
DUBE, W. V., & MCILVANE, W. J. (1995). Stimulus-reinforcer relations and emergent matching-to-sample. The Psychological Record, 45, 591–612.
ESTEVEZ, A. F., FUENTES, L. J., MARI-BEFFA, P., GONZALEZ, C., & ALVAREZ, D. (2001). The differential outcome effect as a useful tool to improve conditional discrimination learning in children. Learning and Motivation, 32, 48–64.
ESTEVEZ, A. F., FUENTES, L. J., OVERMIER, J. B., & GONZALEZ, C. (2003). Differential outcomes effect in children and adults with Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108, 108–116.
ESTEVEZ, A. F., VIVAS, A. B., ALONSO, D., MARI-BEFFA, P., FUENTES, L. J., & OVERMIER, J. B. (2007). Enhancing challenged students’ recognition of mathematical relations through differential outcomes training. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 571–580.
GOETERS, S., BLAKELY, E., & POLING, A. (1992). The differential outcomes effect. The Psychological Record, 42, 389–411.
GOYOS, C. (2000). Equivalence class formation via common reinforcers among preschool children. The Psychological Record, 50, 629–654.
HOCHHALTER, A. K., & JOSEPH, B. (2001). Differential outcomes training facilitates memory in people with Korsakoff and Prader-Willi syndromes. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 36, 196–204.
HOCHHALTER, A. K., SWEENEY, W. A., BAKKE, B. L., HOLUB, R. J., & OVERMIER, J. B. (2000). Improving face recognition in alcohol dementia. Clinical Gerontologist, 22, 3–18.
JOHNSON, A. N. (1985). The role of discrimination and mediation in concept formation in art. Visual Arts Research, 11, 31–39.
JOSEPH, B., OVERMIER, J. B., & THOMPSON, T. (1997). Food- and nonfood- related differential outcomes in equivalence learning by adults with Prader-Willi syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 374–386.
KLAHR, D., CHEN, Z., & TOTH, E. E. (2001). Cognitive development and science education: Ships that pass in the night or beacons of mutual illumination? In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 75–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KRUSE, J. M., OVERMIER, J. B., KONZ, W. A., & ROKKE, E. (1983). Pavlovian Cs effects upon instrumental choice behavior are reinforcer specific. Learning & Motivation, 14, 165–181.
LITT, M. D., & SCHREIBMAN, L. (1981). Stimulus-specific reinforcement in the acquisition of receptive labels by autistic children. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 171–186.
LOPEZ-CRESPO, G., PLAZA, V., FUENTES, L. J., & ESTEVEZ, A. F. (2009). Improvement of age-related memory deficits by differential outcomes. International Psychogeriatrics, 21, 503–510.
MACCORQUODALE, K., & MEEHL, P. E. (1953). Preliminary suggestions as to a formalization of expectancy theory. Psychological Review, 60, 55–63.
MAKI, P., OVERMIER, J. B., DELOS, S., & GUTMANN, A. J. (1995). Expectancies as factors influencing conditional discrimination performance of children. The Psychological Record, 45, 45–71.
MALANGA, P., & POLING, A. (1992). Letter recognition by adults with mental retardation: Improving performance through differential outcomes. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 20, 39–48.
MELCHIORI, L. E., DE SOUZA, D. G., & DE ROSE, J. C. (2000). Reading, equivalence, and recombination of units: A replication with students with different learning histories. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 97–100.
MARTINEZ, L., ESTEVEZ, A. F., FUENTES, L. J., & OVERMIER, J. B. (2009). Improving conditional discrimination learning in five-year-old children: Doe using different types of reinforcement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1617–1630.
MILLER, O. T., WAUGH, K. M., & CHAMBERS, K. (2002). Differential outcomes effect: Increased accuracy in adults learning kanji with stimulus specific rewards. The Psychological Record, 52, 315–324.
MINSTER, S. T., JONES, M., ELLIFFE, D., & MUTHUKUMARASWAMY, S. D. (2006). Stimulus equivalence: Testing Sidman’s (2000) theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 371–391.
MIYASHITA, Y., NAKAJIMA, S., & IMADA, H. (2000). Differential outcome effect in the horse. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 245–253.
MOK, L. W., & OVERMIER, J. B. (2003, May). Differential rewards help me learn. Poster session presented at the American Psychological Society 15th Annual Convention, Atlanta, Georgia.
MOK, L. W., & OVERMIER, J. B. (2007). The differential outcomes effect in normal human adults using a concurrent-task within-subjects design and sensory outcomes. The Psychological Record, 57, 187–200.
MOK, L. W., THOMAS, K. M., LUNGU, O. V., & OVERMIER, J. B. (2009). Neural correlates of cue-unique outcome expectations under differential outcomes training: An fMri study. Brain Research, 1265, 111–127.
MOWRER, O. H. (1947). On the dual nature of learning: A reinterpretation of “conditioning” and “problem-solving.” Harvard Educational Review, 17, 102–148.
NINNESS, C., RUMPH, R., MCCULLER, G., HARRISON, C., FORD, A. M., & NINNESS, S. K. (2005). A functional analytic approach to computer- interactive mathematics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 1–22.
NINNESS, S., BARNES-HOLMES, D., RUMPH, R., MCCULLER, G., FORD, A. M., PAYNE, R., et al. (2006). Transformations of mathematical and stimulus functions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 299–321.
ORMROD, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
OVERMIER, J. B., BULL, J. A., & TRAPOLD, M. A. (1971). Discriminative cue properties of different fears and their role in response selection in dogs. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 76, 478–482.
PETERSON, G. B., & TRAPOLD, M. A. (1980). Effects of altering outcome expectancies on pigeons’ delayed conditional discrimination performance. Learning and Motivation, 11, 267–288.
PETERSON, G. B., WHEELER, R. L., & ARMSTRONG, G. D. (1978). Expectancies as mediators in the differential-reward conditional discrimination performance of pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 6, 279–285.
RESCORLA, R. A., & SOLOMON, R. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review, 13, 3–17.
SAVAGE, L. M. (2001). In search of the neurobiological underpinnings of the differential outcomes effect. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, 36, 182–195.
SCHENK, J. L. (1994). Emergent relations of equivalence generated by outcome-specific consequences in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 44, 537–558.
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.
SIDMAN, M., KIRK, B., & WILSON-MORRIS, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42.
SIDMAN, M., RAUZIN, R., LAZAR, R., CUNNINGHAM, S., TAILBY, W., & CARRIGAN, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44.
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.
SKINNER, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Random House.
SPENCE, K. W. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
STEELSMITH, S. (2000). Go to your room! Consequences that teach. Seattle, WA: Parenting Press.
STROMER, R., MACKAY, H. A., HOWELL, S. R., MCVAY, A. A., & FLUSSER, D. (1996). Teaching computer-based spelling to individuals with developmental and hearing disabilities: Transfer of stimulus control to writing tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 25–42.
THORNDIKE, E. L. (1914). Educational psychology: Briefer course. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College.
TOLMAN, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.
TRAPOLD, M. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events discriminably different? Learning and Motivation, 1, 129–140.
TRAPOLD, M. A., & OVERMIER, J. B. (1972). The second learning process in instrumental learning. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning: II. Current theory and research (pp. 427–452). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
URCUIOLI, P. J. (1990). Some relationships between outcome expectancies and sample stimuli in pigeons’ delayed matching. Animal Learning and Behavior, 18, 302–314.
URCUIOLI, P. J. (2005). Behavioral and associative effects of differential outcomes in discrimination learning. Learning and Behavior, 33, 1–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mok, L.W., Estevez, A.F. & Overmier, J.B. Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool. Psychol Rec 60, 227–247 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395705
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395705