The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 51–66 | Cite as

The Formation of Arbitrary Stimulus Classes in Matching to Complex Samples

  • Robert Stromer
  • Joan Butcher Stromer
Article

Abstract

This study assessed whether arbitrary stimulus classes would emerge via elements of complex sample stimuli. College students learned matching to sample (AB-D/AC-E) where D and E forms were selected conditionally upon complex tone/color samples (AB and AC). Unreinforced tests were then given to assess emergent relations among the five sets of stimuli (e.g., A-B, D-B, B-C, B-E, and D-E). The test performances for 14 of 18 subjects were consistent with the experimentally defined stimulus classes. These 14 subjects were also given tests with new F forms as sample elements (Test AF-B). Subsequent testing for emergent relations (e.g., F-D and E-F) showed that the classes were expanded to six members each. the study demonstrated that the relations necessary for arbitrary class formation and expansion may be established without explicit training of each. The procedures permitted an analysis of six-member equivalence classes based on relations among elements of complex samples and their respective comparisons.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. COLAVITA, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DEVANY, J. M., HAYES, S. C., & NELSON, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. FIELDS, L., & VERHAVE, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. FIELDS, L., VERHAVE, T., & FATH, S. (1984). Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 143–157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. LAZAR, R. M., DAVIS-LANG, D., & SANCHEZ, L. (1984). The formation of stimulus equivalences in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 251–266.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. LOVAAS, O. I., KOEGEL, R. L., & SCHREIBMAN, L. (1979). Stimulus overselectivity in autism: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1236–1254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  8. POSNER, M. I., NISSEN, M. J., & KLEIN, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157–171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. RANDICH, A., KLEIN, R. M., & LOLORDO, V. M. (1978). Visual dominance in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. REYNOLDS, G. S. (1961). Attention in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 203–208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. RUDOLPH, R. L., & VAN HOUTEN, R. (1977). Auditory stimulus control in pigeons: Jenkins and Harrison (1960) revisited. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 327–330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. SAUNDERS, R. R., SAUNDERS, K. J., KIRBY, K. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 145–162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. SAUNDERS, R. R., WACHTER, J., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. SCHREIBMAN, L., KOEGEL, R. L., & CRAIG, M. S. (1977). Reducing stimulus overselectivity in autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 425–436.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. SIDMAN, M., KIRK, B., & WILLSON-MORRIS, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. SIDMAN, M., RAUZIN, R., LAZAR, R., CUNNINGHAM, S., TAILBY, W., & CARRIGAN, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. SIDMAN, M., & TAILBY, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. SPRADLIN, J. E., & SAUNDERS, R. R. (1986). The development of stimulus classes using match-to-sample procedures: Sample classification versus comparison classification. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. STODDARD, L. T., & SIDMAN, M. (1971). The removal and restoration of stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 143–154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. STROMER, R. (1986). Control by exclusion in arbitrary matching-to-sample. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. STROMER, R. (1989). Symmetry of control by exclusion in humans’ arbitrary matching to sample. Psychological Reports, 64, 915–922.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. STROMER, R., & OSBORNE, J. G. (1982). Control of adolescents’ arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 329–348.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. WARREN, J. M. (1953). Additivity of cues in visual pattern discriminations by monkeys. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46, 484–486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. WETHERBY, B., KARLAN, G. R., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1983). The development of derived stimulus relations through training in arbitrary-matching sequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 69–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Stromer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joan Butcher Stromer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Northern Michigan UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Behavior Analysis DepartmentE. K. Shriver CenterWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations