The Psychological Record

, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 551–558 | Cite as

Assessing Derived Conditional Relations Under Reinforcement Conditions

  • Saulo Missiaggia Velasco
  • Gerson Yukio Tomanari
Original Article

Abstract

The present study assessed derived conditional relations using a within-subject sequence of training and testing with reinforcement. In Experiment 1, four undergraduates were trained on two independent arbitrary-matching tasks (A–B and C–D). Next, they were given reinforced symmetry trials for half of the baseline stimuli (B–A and D–C). To show that accuracy on symmetry trials was not a result of rapid learning due to reinforcement; novel relations were reinforced among the remaining baseline stimuli (B–C and D–A), as an experimental control. All participants acquired symmetrical relations faster than the novel, control relations. Experiment 2 assessed transitivity using a similar testing strategy. All but one participant acquired transitive relations faster than the novel, control relations. These results conform to those arising from traditional unreinforced tests and suggest the potential of the proposed strategy to study populations in which the emergence of conditional relations seems to be negatively affected by the suspension of reinforcement during tests.

Keywords

Conditional discrimination Symmetry Transitivity Arbitrary matching-to-sample task Button press Humans 

Notes

Author Note

This research was supported by Doctoral Grant (CNPq 142544/2005-1) to the first author, and Researcher Grant (CNPq 302640/2007-0) and Research Support (CNPq, Edital Universal, 471953/2004-0) to the second author. Both authors are members of the National Institute of Science and Technology on Behavior, Cognition and Teaching, supported by FAPESP (Grant #08/57705-8) and CNPq (Grant #573972/2008-7). There is no conflict of interest to declare concerning both authors. The authors express their acknowledgments to Alex Wahl, Paula Braga-Kenyon, and Shawn Kenyon for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Correspondence must be sent to either Saulo M. Velasco, e-mail: saulovelasco@gmail.com or Gerson Y. Tomanari, e-mail: tomanari@usp.br.

References

  1. Brino, A. L. F., Galvão, O. F., & Barros, R. S. (2009). Successive identity matching to sample tests without reinforcement in Cebus apella. Ciência & Cognição, 14, 2–11.Google Scholar
  2. Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 101–115. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-101.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. D’Amato, M. R., Salmon, D. P., Loukas, E., & Tomie, A. (1985). Symmetry and transitivity of conditional relations in monkeys (Cebus apella) and Pigeons (Columbia livia). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 35–47. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-35.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disable children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dube, W. V., & Hiris, E. J. (1999). MTS software documentation. Waltham: E. K. Shriver Center.Google Scholar
  6. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent stimulus class. In T. R. Zental & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dugdale, N., & Lowe, C. F. (2000). Testing for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of language-trained chimpanzees. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Galvão, O. F., Calcagno, S., & Sidman, M. (1992). Testing for emergent performances in extinction. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 10, 18–20.Google Scholar
  9. Galvão, O. F., Barros, R. S., Santos, J. R., Brino, A. L. F., Brandão, S., Lavratti, C. M., et al. (2005). Extent and limits of the matching concept in Cebus apella: A matter of experimental control? The Psychological Record, 55, 219–232.Google Scholar
  10. Gray, L. (1966). Backward association in pigeons. Psychonomic Science, 4, 333–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogan, D. E., & Zentall, T. R. (1977). Backward associations in pigeon. American Journal of Psychology, 90, 3–15. doi: 10.2307/1421635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holmes, P. W. (1979). Transfer of matching performance in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 103–114. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-103.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuno, H., Kitadate, T., & Iwamoto, T. (1994). Formation of transitivity in conditional matching to sample by pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 399–408. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-399.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lazar, R. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381–392. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-381.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lazar, R., Davis-Lang, D., & Sanches, L. (1984). The formation of visual stimulus equivalence in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 251–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-251.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2002). Stimulus control topographies and test of symmetry in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 467–495. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.78-467.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lipkens, R., Kop, P. F. M., & Matthijs, W. (1988). A test for symmetry and transitivity in the conditional discrimination performances of pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 395–409. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-395.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Maguire, R. W., Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., & Demis, C. A. (1994). Matching to complex samples and stimulus class formation in adults with autism and young children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 753–772. doi: 10.1007/BF02172284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Richards, R. W. (1988). The question of bidirectional associations in pigeons’ learning of conditional discrimination tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 577–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rodewald, H. K. (1974). Symbolic matching-to-sample by pigeons. Psychological Reports, 34, 987–990. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1974.34.3.987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1993). A California see lion (Zlophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–839.Google Scholar
  22. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalence. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative Pub.Google Scholar
  24. Sidman, M., & Cresson, O., Jr. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalence in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 515–523.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 47–63. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.Google Scholar
  26. Sidman, M., Rauzin, R., Lazar, R., Cunninghan, S., Tailby, W., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discrimination of rhesus monkeys, baboons and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-23.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-21.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. doi: 10.1016/0270-4684(86)90003-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spradlin, J. E., Cotter, V. W., & Baxley, N. (1973). Establishing a conditional discrimination without direct training: A study of transfer with retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 556–566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Urcuioli, P. J. (2008). Associative symmetry, antisymmetry, and a theory of pigeons’ equivalence-class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 257–282. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-257.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Velasco, S. M., Huziwara, E. M., Machado, A., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2010). Associative symmetry by pigeons after few-exemplar training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 94, 283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.94-283.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saulo Missiaggia Velasco
    • 1
  • Gerson Yukio Tomanari
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Psicologia ExperimentalUniversidade de São Paulo, BrazilSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations