Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 123–140 | Cite as

Graded Delay, Enhanced Equivalence Class Formation, and Meaning

  • Erik Arntzen
  • Richard K. Nartey
  • Lanny Fields
Original Article

Abstract

Assigned to 12 groups, 120 college students were taught the baseline relations for three equivalence classes (A → B → C→ D→ E) using the simultaneous protocol with trials conducted in matching-to-sample format. In 11 of the 12 groups, all stimuli were abstract shapes; in one group (PIC), the A, B, D, and E stimuli were abstract and the C stimuli were pictures. One group with abstract shapes only (ABS) did not receive preliminary training, while 10 other groups received preliminary training before class formation training. In five groups, participants learned identity relations with the C stimuli using 0-, 1-, 3-, 6-, or 9-s delays. In five others, participants learned arbitrary relations between C and X stimuli using the same five delays. Classes were formed by 70 and 0% of participants in the PIC and the ABS groups, respectively. Class formation increased systematically after preliminary training with the 0-s through 6-s delays and decreased after preliminary training with the 9-s delay. Thus, enhanced class formation was a graded, non-monotonic function of delay duration. For each delay, class formation was greater after establishing arbitrary relations than identity relations. The effects of delay in preliminary training on class formation were similar to their effects on the maintenance of the baseline relations in the derived relation tests. Two opposing processes were posited to account for the delay effects on class formation. Finally, we discussed how class enhancement by meaningful stimuli can also be attributed to their relational functions and delays.

Keywords

Stimulus equivalence Enhanced class formation Identity and arbitrary relations Delayed matching Opponent processes Simultaneous protocol College students 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by Oslo Metropolitan University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adams, B. J., Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1993). Effects of test order on intersubject variability during equivalence formation. The Psychological Record, 43, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albright, L., Reeve, K. F., Reeve, S. A., & Kisamore, A. N. (2015). Teaching statistical variability with equivalence-based instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(4), 883–894.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arntzen, E. (2006). Delayed matching to sample and stimulus equivalence: Probability of responding in accord with equivalence as a function of different delays. The Psychological Record, 56, 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arntzen, E. (2012). Training and testing parameters in formation of stimulus equivalence: Methodological issues. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arntzen, E., & Hansen, S. (2011). Training structures and the formation of equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. The Psychological Record, 47, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of class size vs. number of classes. The Psychological Record, 50, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arntzen, E., Galaen, T., & Halvorsen, L. R. (2007). Different retention intervals in delayed matching-to-sample: Effects of responding in accord with equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and the subsequent performance on the tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arntzen, E., Halstadtro, L. B., Bjerke, E., & Halstadtro, M. (2010). Training and testing theoretical music skills in a boy with autism using a matching-to-sample format. Behavioral Interventions, 25(2), 129–143.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arntzen, E., Halstadtro, L. B., Bjerke, E., Wittner, K. J., & Kristiansen, A. (2014). On the sequential and concurrent presentation of trials establishing prerequisites for emergent relations. The Behavior Analyst Today, 14(1–2), 23–30.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101280.Google Scholar
  12. Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2014). Identity and delay functions of meaningful stimuli: Enhanced equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 64, 349–360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0066-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2015). Enhanced equivalence class formation by the delay and relational functions of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 524–541.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Arntzen, E., Norbom, A., & Fields, L. (2015). Sorting: An alternative measure of class formation? The Psychological Record, 65, 615–625.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0132-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46B, 187–214.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401085.Google Scholar
  16. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2009). Assessment of the relatedness of equivalent stimuli through a semantic differential. The Psychological Record, 59, 563–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bortoloti, R., Rodrigues, N. C., Cortez, M. D., Pimentel, N., & de Rose, J. C. (2013). Overtraining increases the strength of equivalence relations. Psychology & Neuroscience, 6(3), 357–364.  https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buffington, D. M., Fields, L., & Adams, B. J. (1997). Enhancing equivalence class formation by pretraining of other equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 47, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Critchfield, T. S., & Fienup, D. M. (2010). Using stimulus equivalence technology to teach statistical inference in a group setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 763–768.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-763.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Fields, L., & Spear, J. (2012). Measuring joint stimulus control by complex graph/description correspondences. The Psychological Record, 62(2), 279–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fields, L., & Watanabe-Rose, M. (2008). Nodal structure and the partitioning of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89(3), 359–381.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008-89-359.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Fields, L., Landon-Jimenez, D. V., Buffington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995). Maintained nodal-distance effects in equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129–145.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1995.64-129.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Rosen, D., Varelas, A., Adams, B. J., Belanich, J., & Hobbie, S. A. (1997). Using the simultaneous protocol to study equivalence class formation: The facilitating effects of nodal number and size of previously established equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 367–389.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.67-367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fields, L., Hobbie-Reeve, S. A., Adams, B. J., & Reeve, K. F. (1999). Effects of training directionality and class size on equivalence class formation by adults. The Psychological Record, 49, 703–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fields, L., Varelas, A., Reeve, K. F., Belanich, J., Wadhwa, P., DeRosse, P., & Rosen, D. (2000). Effects of prior conditional discrimination training, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence testing on the emergence of new equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 50(3), 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fields, L., Travis, R., Roy, D., Yadlovker, E., de Auguiar-Rocha, L., & Sturmey, P. (2009). Equivalence formation: A method for teaching statistical interaction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 575–593.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 163–181.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2012.97-163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Fienup, D. M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Efficiently establishing concepts of inferential statistics and hypothesis decision making through contextually controlled equivalence classes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 437–462.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Fienup, D. M., Covey, D. P., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Teaching brain–behavior relations economically with stimulus equivalence technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 19–33.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Fienup, D. M., Mylan, S. E., Brodsky, J., & Pytte, C. (2015). From the laboratory to the classroom: The effects of equivalence-based instruction on neuroanatomy competencies (pp. 1–23). Online: Journal of Behavioral Education.Google Scholar
  31. Fienup, D. M., Wright, N. A., & Fields, L. (2015). Optimizing equivalence based instruction: Effects of training protocols on equivalence class formation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grehan, P. M. (1998). Depressed subjects’ formation of mood congruent and incongruent equivalence relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Leslie, J. C., Tierney, K. J., Robinson, C. P., Keenan, M., & Watt, A. (1993). Differences between clinically anxious and non-anxious subjects in a stimulus equivalence training task involving threat works. The Psychological Record, 43, 153–161.Google Scholar
  34. Lovett, S., Rehfeldt, R. A., Garcia, Y., & Dunning, J. (2011). Comparison of a stimulus equivalence protocol and traditional lecture for teaching single-subject designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 819–833.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-819.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. McGlinchey, A., & Keenan, M. (1997). Stimulus equivalence and social categorization in Northern Ireland. Behavior and Social Issues, 7, 113–128.  https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v7i2.310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 195–213.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Nartey, R. K., Arntzen, E., & Fields, L. (2014). Two discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli that enhance equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 64, 777–789.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0072-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nedelcu, R. I., Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2015). Conditional discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli and enhanced equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 349–360.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Peoples, M., Tierney, K. J., Bracken, M., & McKay, C. (1998). Prior learning and equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 48, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plaud, J. J. (1995). The formation of stimulus equivalences: Fear-relevant versus fear-irrelevant stimulus classes. The Psychological Record, 45, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saunders, R. R., Chaney, L., & Marquis, J. G. (2005). Equivalence class establishment with two-, three-, and four-choice matching to sample by senior citizens. The Psychological Record, 55, 539–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spear, J., & Fields, L. (2015). Learning to write without writing: Writing accurate descriptions of interactions after learning graph-printed description relations. Learning & Behavior, 43, 354–375.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-015-0184-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Travis, R. W., Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2014). Discriminative functions and over-training as class-enhancing determinants of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 47–65.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vaidya, M., & Smith, K. N. (2006). Brief report: Delayed matching-to-sample training facilitates derived relational responding. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 24, 9–16.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, B. D., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2012). An evaluation of the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach single-subject design to distance education students via blackboard. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(2), 329–344.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-329.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Walker, B. D., Rehfeldt, R. A., & Ninness, C. (2010). Using the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach course material in an undergraduate rehabilitation course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 615–633.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-615.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Watt, A., Keenan, M., Barnes, D., & Cairns, E. (1991). Social categorization and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 41, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zinn, T. E., Newland, M. C., & Ritchie, K. E. (2015). The efficiency and efficacy of equivalence-based learning: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(4), 865–882.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Arntzen
    • 1
  • Richard K. Nartey
    • 1
  • Lanny Fields
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Behavioral ScienceOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway
  2. 2.Queens College and The Graduate School of the City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations