Abstract
Nodal distance specifies the number of nodes that separate any two stimuli in an equivalence class. Directionality of training specifies the sample and comparison functions that are served by the stimuli in a class. These parameters define the formal structure of an equivalence class. Four experiments showed that directionality of training influenced likelihood of class formation and the transfer of responding between stimuli in a class. Eight experiments showed that some test performances were inverse functions of the nodal distance, whereas others were direct functions of nodal distance. The effects of nodal distance were transient when only one response was trained to a stimulus in a class and when the effects of between-class contingencies prevailed during a particular test. They were maintained when at least two responses were trained to some stimuli in a class, and when the effects of between-class contingencies were minimized. Effects of nodal distance thus appear to be imparted permanently during the establishment of baseline relations. Their influence on test performance depends on the effects of other contingencies that can overshadow the effects of nodal distance. Test performances, then, reflect the interactive effects of nodal distance and the parameters of training and testing. The data showed that the stimuli in an equivalence class were only partially substitutable for each other. Thus the relatedness of the stimuli in an equivalence class was an inverse function of the nodal distance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ADAMS, B. J., FIELDS, L., & VERHAVE, T. (1993). The effects of test order on the establishment and expansion of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 43, 133–152.
BARNES, P. M. D. (1992, April). Controlling equivalence and transfer responding through the structure of equivalence classes and the relational frame of comparison. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Great Britain Experimental Analysis of Behavior Group, London, England.
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 46B, (May).
COLLINS, A. M., & LOFTUS, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic memory. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
COLLINS, A. M., & QUILLIAN, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior; 8, 240–248.
DEVANEY, 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.
DE ROSE, J. C., MCILVANE, W. J., DUBE, W. V., GALPIN, V. C., & STODDARD, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1–20.
DIXON, M., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1976). Establishing stimulus equivalences among retarded adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 21, 144–164.
DUBE, W. V., GREEN, G., & SERNA, R. W. (1993). Auditory successive conditional discrimination and auditory stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 103–114.
EBBINGHAUS, H. (1913). On memory: A contribution to experimental psychology thoa 1885. ( H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.) New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
FIELDS, L., ADAMS, B. J., NEWMAN, S., & VERHAVE, T. (1992). Interactions among emergent relations during equivalence class formation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45B, 125–138.
FIELDS, L., ADAMS, B. J., & VERHAVE, T. (1989, May). Relative strength of symmetrical, transitive and equivalence relations after equivalence classes are fully formed. Paper presented in a symposium at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee, WI.
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.
FIELDS, L., NEWMAN, S., ADAMS, B. J., & VERHAVE, T. (1993). Are stimuli in equivalence classes equally related? The Psychological Record, 43, 85–106.
FIELDS, L., & VERHAVE, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.
FIELDS, L., VERHAVE, T., & FATH, S. J. (1984). Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 143–157.
HEARST, E. (1988). Fundamentals of learning and conditioning. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 3–110). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
KENNEDY, C. L. (1991). Equivalence class formation influenced by the number of nodes separating stimuli. Behavioral Processes, 24, 219–245.
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.
MCDONAGH, E. C., MCILVANE, W. C., & STODDARD, L. T. (1984). Teaching coin equivalences via matching to sample. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 5, 177–197
O’MARA, H. (1991). Quantitative and methodological aspects of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 125–132.
SAUNDERS, R. L., & GREEN, G. (1992). The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 227–241.
SAUNDERS, K. J., SAUNDERS, R. R., WILLIAMS, D. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1993: this issue). An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: Extending the analysis of equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 725–744.
SAUNDERS, R. R., WÄCHTER, J. A., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member stimulus class via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115.
SIDMAN, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.
SIDMAN, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In H. Lejuene & D. Blackman (Eds.), Behavior analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
SIDMAN, M., & CRESSON, O., Jr. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 515–523.
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.
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.
SLAMECKA, N. J. (1985). In defense of a new approach to old phenomena. Psychological Review, 72, 242–246.
SPRADLIN, J. E., & DIXON, M. H. (1976). Establishing conditional discriminations without direct training: Stimulus classes and labels. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 555–561.
SPRADLIN, J. E., & SAUNDERS, R. R. (1984). Behaving appropriately in new situations: A stimulus class analysis. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 574–579.
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.
URCUIOLI, P. J., ZENTALL, T. R., JACKSON-SMITH, P., STEIRN, J. N. (1989). Evidence for common coding in many-to-one matching: Retention, intertrial interference, and transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 264–273.
WULFERT, E., & HAYES, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 125–144.
ZENTALL, T. R., STEIRN, J. N., SHERBURNE, L. M., & URCUIOLI, P. J. (1991). Common coding in pigeons assessed through partial versus total reversals of many-to-one conditional and simple discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 194–201.
ZENTALL, T. R., SHERBURNE, L. M., STEIRN, J. N., RANDALL, C. K., ROPER, K. L., & URCUIOLI, P. J. (in press). Common coding in pigeons: Partial reversals of one-to-many conditional discriminations. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 373–381.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This paper was prepared with the support of Contract MDA903-90-C-0132 from the Army Research Institute and of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies from the estate of Betty Lipson.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fields, L., Adams, B.J. & Verhave, T. The Effects of Equivalence Class Structure on Test Performances. Psychol Rec 43, 697–712 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395907
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395907