Abstract
In successful multiple exemplar training, a set of exemplars that sample the range of stimulus and response topographies is trained, and the full range of performances results. Examples abound in experimental psychology and include abstraction and concept learning, responding to relations, identity matching, rule following, behavioral variability, responding to wh-questions, describing past events, learning sets, and continuous repertoires. Thus, behavior analysts often allude to a history of multiple exemplar training to account for different generalized performances. It is easy to see how a strategy of multiple exemplar training can work with many types of performances, even performances that involve relations between objects or events. However, there appear to be at least two exceptions, where direct multiple exemplar training does not work well: (1) when there are no physical dimensions at all along which generalized performances can emerge, and (2) when the relation between a stimulus and an effective response is complex. Interpretation of the latter type of cases in terms of mediated generalization is outlined and discussed. An experimental and conceptual research program should produce an account of the general limits of multiple exemplar training, and guidelines for the most effective training for generalized skills.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baer, D. M. (1981). How to plan for generalization. Austin: Pro-Ed.
Catania, A. C. (1973). The concept of the operant in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 1, 103–116.
Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Cornwall on Hudson: Sloan Publishing.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, C. (1982). Theory of instruction: principles and applications. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Matneja, P., Varelas, A., Belanich, J., Fitzer, A., et al. (2002). The formation of a generalized categorization repertoire: effects of training with multiple domains, samples, and comparisons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 291–313.
Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal behavior analysis: inducing and expanding new verbal capabilities in children with language delays. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., Chavez-Brown, M., & Rivera-Valdes, C. (2005). The emergence of the listener to speaker component of naming in children as a function of multiple exemplar instruction. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 123–134.
Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., & Pistoljevic, N. (2007). Emergence of naming in preschoolers: a comparison of multiple and single exemplar instruction. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 109–131.
Guttman, N., & Kalish, H. I. (1956). Discriminability and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 79–88.
Hanson, H. M. (1961). Stimulus generalization following three-stimulus discrimination training. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54(2), 181–185.
Harlow, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56(1), 51–65. doi:10.1037/h0062474.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: a précis. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 141–154). New York: Kluwer.
Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21–49). New York: Kluwer.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Loveland, D. H. (1964). Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science, 146, 549–551.
Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 285–301.
Holth, P. (2012). Variability as an operant? Behavior Analyst, 35(2), 243–248.
Holth, P. (2013). Different sciences as answers to different why questions. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 14, 165–170.
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.
Horner, R. H., Sprague, J., & Wilcox, B. (1982). General case programming for community activitie. In B. Wilcox & G. T. Bellamy (Eds.), Design of high school programs for severely handicapped students (pp. 61–98). Baltimore: Brookes.
Hughes, C., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Teaching supported employees with severe mental retardation to solve problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 365–372. doi:10.1901/jaba.1989.22-365.
Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of evolution of concepts: an experimental study. Psychological Monographs, 28, i–86. doi:10.1037/h0093130.
Jahr, E. (2001). Teaching children with autism to answer novel wh-questions by utilizing a multiple exemplar strategy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 407–423.
Johnston, J. M. (1979). On the relation between generalization and generality. Behavior Analyst, 2, 1–6.
Kalish, H. I., & Guttman, N. (1959). Stimulus generalization after training on three stimuli: a test of the summation hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 268–272.
Kalish, H. I., & Haber, A. (1963). Generalization: I. Generalization gradients from single and multiple stlmulus points. II. Generalization of inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 176–181.
Kifer, R. E., Lewis, M. A., Green, D. R., & Phillips, E. L. (1974). Training predelinquent youths and their parents to negotiate conflict situations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 357–364.
Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching developmentally disabled children: the me book. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Lowenkron, B. (1991). Joint control and the generalization of selection-based verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 121–126.
Lowenkron, B. (1996). Joint control and word-object bidirectionality. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 252–255.
Lowenkron, B. (1998). Some logical functions of joint control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 327–354.
Luiselli, J. K., Russo, D. C., Christian, W. P., & Wilczynski, S. M. (Eds.). (2008). Effective practices for children with autism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Malott, R., & Siddall, J. W. (1972). Acquisition of the people concept in the pigeon. Psychological Reports, 31, 3–13.
Maurice, C., Green, G., & Luce, S. (Eds.). (1996). Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: a manual for parents and professionals. Austin: Pro-Ed.
Neuringer, A. (2009). Operant variability and the power of reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst Today, 10(2), 319–343.
O’Neill, R. E. (1990). Establishing verbal repertiores: toward the application of general case analysis and programming. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 113–126.
Page, S., & Neuringer, A. (1985). Variability is an operant. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Processes, 11, 429–452.
Palmer, D. C. (1991). A behavioral interpretation of memory. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 261–279). Reno: Context Press.
Poulson, C. L., & Kymissis, E. (1996). The operant language-acquisition psradigm and its empirical support. In S. W. Bijou & E. Ribes (Eds.), New directions in behavior development (pp. 73–89). Reno: Context Press.
Poulson, C. L., Kyparissos, N., Andreatos, M., Kymissis, E., & Parnes, M. (2002). Generalized imitation within three response classes in typically developing infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 341–357. doi:10.1006/jecp.2002.2661.
Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10(1), 41–45.
Sidman, M. (1979). Remarks. Behaviorism, 7(2), 123–126.
Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. The Journal of General Psychology, 12(1), 40–65.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillian.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Sprague, J. R., & Horner, R. H. (1984). The effects of single instance, multiple instance, and general case training on generalized vending machine use by moderately and severely handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 273–278.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (2003). Mediated generalization: an unfinished portrait. In K. S. Budd & T. Stokes (Eds.), A small matter of proof: the legacy of Donald M. Baer (pp. 125–138). Reno: Context Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911/2000). Animal intelligence: experimental studies. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Wildemann, D. G., & Holland, J. G. (1972). Control of a continuous response dimension by a continuous stimulus dimension. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 419–434.
Young, J. M., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. L. (1994). Generalized imitation and response-class formation in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 685–697.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holth, P. Multiple Exemplar Training: Some Strengths and Limitations. BEHAV ANALYST 40, 225–241 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0083-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0083-z