Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 225–241 | Cite as

Multiple Exemplar Training: Some Strengths and Limitations

  • Per HolthEmail author
Original Research

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.

Keywords

Multiple exemplar training Generalized skills Problem solving Mediated generalization 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baer, D. M. (1981). How to plan for generalization. Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  2. Catania, A. C. (1973). The concept of the operant in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 1, 103–116.Google Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Cornwall on Hudson: Sloan Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, C. (1982). Theory of instruction: principles and applications. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal behavior analysis: inducing and expanding new verbal capabilities in children with language delays. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Guttman, N., & Kalish, H. I. (1956). Discriminability and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 79–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanson, H. M. (1961). Stimulus generalization following three-stimulus discrimination training. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54(2), 181–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harlow, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56(1), 51–65. doi: 10.1037/h0062474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Herrnstein, R. J., & Loveland, D. H. (1964). Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science, 146, 549–551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 285–301.Google Scholar
  16. Holth, P. (2012). Variability as an operant? Behavior Analyst, 35(2), 243–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Holth, P. (2013). Different sciences as answers to different why questions. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 14, 165–170.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of evolution of concepts: an experimental study. Psychological Monographs, 28, i–86. doi: 10.1037/h0093130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston, J. M. (1979). On the relation between generalization and generality. Behavior Analyst, 2, 1–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching developmentally disabled children: the me book. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lowenkron, B. (1991). Joint control and the generalization of selection-based verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 121–126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowenkron, B. (1996). Joint control and word-object bidirectionality. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 252–255.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowenkron, B. (1998). Some logical functions of joint control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 327–354.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Malott, R., & Siddall, J. W. (1972). Acquisition of the people concept in the pigeon. Psychological Reports, 31, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maurice, C., Green, G., & Luce, S. (Eds.). (1996). Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: a manual for parents and professionals. Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  34. Neuringer, A. (2009). Operant variability and the power of reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst Today, 10(2), 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Page, S., & Neuringer, A. (1985). Variability is an operant. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Processes, 11, 429–452.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10(1), 41–45.Google Scholar
  41. Sidman, M. (1979). Remarks. Behaviorism, 7(2), 123–126.Google Scholar
  42. Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. The Journal of General Psychology, 12(1), 40–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
  44. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  45. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  46. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Thorndike, E. L. (1911/2000). Animal intelligence: experimental studies. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations