Abstract
In two experiments, we examined the disruptive effects of a “can’t answer” response option (CARO) on equivalence formation. The first experiment was a systematic replication of Duarte, Eikeseth, Rosales-Ruiz, and Baer (1998), in which participants in a CARO group and a No-CARO group performed conditional discrimination tasks with abstract stimuli using a paper-and-pencil format for training and testing of equivalence relations. The presence of the CARO led to the nonemergence of equivalence classes. In the second experiment, participants performed conditional discrimination tasks using standard matching-to-sample training and testing procedures on a computer with CARO available only during testing. Equivalence yields were also low, with participants using CARO more on transitive and equivalence trials than on symmetry trials. The results support previous reports of equivalence disruption by nonresponse options such as CARO and suggest directions for further research.
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). Effects of the test order on the establishment and expansion of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 43, 133–152.
ARNTZEN, E., GRONDAHL, T., & EILIFSEN, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. Psychological Record, 60, 437–462.
ARNTZEN, E., & HOLTH, P. (2000). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of class size vs. number of classes. Psychological Record, 50, 79–104.
DUARTE, A. M., EIKESETH, S., ROSALES-RUIZ, J., & BAER, D. (1998). The effects of a can’t-answer response option and instructions on stimulus equivalence. Psychological Record, 48, 631–646.
DUBE, W., & HIRIS, J. (1997). Match to Sample Program (Version 11.08a67) [Computer software]. Waltham, MA: E. K. Shriver Center for Mental Retardation.
EIKESETH, S., ROSALES-RUIZ, J., DUARTE, A., & BAER, D. (1997). The quick development of equivalence classes in a paper-and-pencil format through written instructions. Psychological Record, 47, 275–284.
FIELDS, L., ADAMS, B. J., BROWN, J. L., & VERHAVE, T. (1993). The generalization of emergent relations in equivalence classes: Stimulus substitutability. Psychological Record, 43, 235–254.
FIELDS, L., REEVE, K. F., ADAMS, B. J., BROWN, J. L., & VERHAVE, T. (1997). Predicting the extension of equivalence classes from primary generalization gradients: The merger of equivalence classes and perceptual classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 67–91. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-67
GRAPHPAD. (2010). Prism for Windows (Version 5.04) [Computer software]. San Diego, CA: Author.
HOLTH, P., & ARNTZEN, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. Psychological Record, 48, 81–110
IMAM, A. A. (2001). Speed contingencies, number of stimulus presentations, and the nodality effect in equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 264–288. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-265
IMAM, A. A. (2006). Experimental control of nodality via equal presentations of conditional discriminations in different equivalence protocols under speed and no-speed conditions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 107–124. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.58-04
INNIS, A., LANE S. D., MILLER, E. R., & CRITCHFIELD T. S. (1998). Stimulus equivalence: Effects of a default response option on emergence of untrained stimulus relations. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 87–102. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-87
KATO, O. M., DE ROSE, J. C., & FALEIROS, P. B. (2008). Topography of responses in conditional discrimination influences formation of equivalence classes. Psychological Record, 58, 245–267.
REEVE, K. F., & FIELDS, L. (2001). Perceptual classes established with forced-choice primary generalization test and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 95–114. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-95
SAUNDERS, R. R., CHANEY, L., & MARQUIS, J. G. (2005). Equivalence class establishment with two-, three-, and four-choice matching to sample by senior citizens. Psychological Record, 55, 539–559.
SAUNDERS, R. R., & GREEN, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 117–137. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.72-117
SAUNDERS, R. R., & MCENTEE, J. E. (2004). Increasing the probability of stimulus equivalence with adults with mental retardation. Psychological Record, 54, 423–435.
SAUNDERS, R. R., & SHERMAN J. A. (1986). Analysis of the “discrimination-failure hypothesis” in generalized matching and mismatching behavior. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 89–107. doi: 10.1016/0270-4685(86)90008-x
SIDMAN, M. (1980). A note on the measurement of conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 285–289. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-285
SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
SPENCER, T. J., & CHASE, P. N. (1996). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-643
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Imam, A.A., Blanche, J.V. Effects of a CARO on Stimulus Equivalence Formation: A Systematic Replication. Psychol Rec 63, 141–156 (2013). https://doi.org/10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.011
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.011