Advertisement

Perspectives on Behavior Science

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 69–93 | Cite as

Meaningful Stimuli and the Enhancement of Equivalence Class Formation

  • Lanny Fields
  • Erik Arntzen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Stimulus meaningfulness has been defined by its hedonic valence, denotative (definitional) and connotative (evaluative) properties, and its influence on forming categories called equivalence classes. Positive or negative hedonic value of a meaningful stimulus transfers to the other members of an equivalence class that contains such a stimulus, and also influences likelihood of class formation. The denotative and connotative properties of meaningful stimuli are instantiated by the responses they produced (simple discriminative functions) and by the selection of other related words (conditional discriminative functions). If a meaningless cue acquires one such stimulus control function, and is included in a set of otherwise meaningless stimuli, its inclusion enhances the formation of an equivalence class. These results suggest ways to enhance equivalence class formation in applied settings. When degree of enhancement matches that produced by the inclusion of a meaningful stimulus in a class, class enhancement can be accounted for by the stimulus control functions it serves, as well as its hedonic, denotative, and connotative properties. We also linked equivalence class formation and meaningfulness to semantic networks, relational frame theory, verbal behavior, and naming.

Keywords

Equivalence classes Meaningfulness Enhancement Stimulus control functions Connotation Denotation Hedonic value 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by the PSC/CUNY Research Awards Program and Oslo and Akershus University College.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Participants and Animal Studies

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards or were determined to be exempt from review by the committee.

Informed Consent

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

References

  1. Adams, B. J., Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1993). The formation of generalized equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 43, 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arntzen, E. (2004). Probability of equivalence formation: familiar stimuli and training sequence. The Psychological Record, 54, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arntzen, E., Eilertsen, J. M., & Fagerstrøm, A. (2016a). Preferences in equivalence classes by low potency benign valenced stimuli. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 17, 142–153.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2016.1247637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arntzen, E., Fagerstrøm, A., & Foxall, G. R. (2016b). Equivalence classes and preferences in consumer choice. In G. R. Foxall (Ed.), The Routledge companion to consumer behavior analysis (pp. 65–77). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Arntzen, E., Granmo, S., & Fields, L. (2017). The relation between sorting tests and matching-to-sample tests in the formation of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 67, 81–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0209-9.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., Wittner, K. J., & Kristiansen, A. (2014a). On the sequential and concurrent presentation of trials establishing prerequisites for emergent relations. The Behavior Analyst Today, 14, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arntzen, E., & Hansen, S. (2011). Training structures and the formation of equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Arntzen, E., & Lian, T. (2010). Trained and derived relations with pictures as nodes. The Psychological Record, 60, 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2014b). 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
  14. Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2015a). Enhancing responding in accordance with stimulus equivalence by the delayed and relational properties of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 524–541.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Arntzen, E., & Nikolaisen, S. (2011). Establishing equivalence classes in children using familiar and abstract stimuli and many-to-one and one-to-many training structures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Arntzen, E., Norbom, A., & Fields, L. (2015b). Sorting: an alternative measure of class formation? The Psychological Record, 65, 615–625.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0132-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Barnes-Holmes, D., Keane, J., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). A derived transfer of emotive functions as a means of establishing differential preferences for soft drinks. The Psychological Record, 50, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Belanich, J., & Fields, L. (2003). Generalized equivalence classes as response transfer networks. The Psychological Record, 53, 373–413.Google Scholar
  20. 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 B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46B(2), 187–214.Google Scholar
  21. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. C. (2009). Assessment of the relatedness of equivalent stimuli through a semantic differential. The Psychological Record, 59, 563–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. C. (2011). An “Orwellian” account of stimulus equivalence: are some stimuli “more equivalent” than others? The European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bousfield, W. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 49, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Buffington, D. M., Fields, L., & Adams, B. J. (1997). Enhancing the formation of equivalence classes by pre-training of other equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 47, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carp, C. L., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2015). Intraverbal naming and equivalence class formation in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104, 223–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Catania, A. C., Horne, P., & Lowe, C. F. (1989). Transfer of function across members of an equivalence class. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 99–110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic memory. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cook, R. G., Cavato, K. K., & Cavato, B. R. (1995). Same-different texture discrimination and concept learning by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 253–260.Google Scholar
  31. de Rosse, P., & Fields, L. (2010). The contextually controlled, feature-mediated classification of symbols. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dickins, D. W., Bentall, R. P., & Smith, A. B. (1993). The role of individual stimulus names in the emergence of equivalence relations: the effects of interpolated paired-associates training of discordant associations between names. The Psychological Record, 43, 713–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Doran, E., & Fields, L. (2012). All stimuli are equal, but some are more equal than others: measuring relational preferences within an equivalence class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98, 243–256.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergence behavior and stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(06)80110-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fields, L. (2009). The synthesis of complex categories from perceptual and equivalence classes: effects of training and testing parameters. The European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fields, L. (2015). Stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes, perceptual categories, and semantic memory networks. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 205–227.Google Scholar
  38. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., & Verhave, T. (1993). The effects of equivalence class structure on test performances. The Psychological Record, 43, 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R., & 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fields, L., Landon-Jimenez, D. V., Buffington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995). Maintained nodal distance effects after equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129–146.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fields, L., & Moss, P. (2008). Formation of partially and fully elaborated generalized equivalence classes. The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 135–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fields, L., & Reeve, K. F. (2000). Synthesizing equivalence classes and natural categories from perceptual and relational classes. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Issues in experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 59–84). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  43. Fields, L., & Reeve, K. (2001). A methodological integration of generalized equivalence classes, natural categories, and cross-modal perception. The Psychological Record, 51, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Adams, B. J., & Verhave, T. (1991). Stimulus generalization and equivalence classes: a model for natural categories. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 305–312.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fields, L., Travis, R., Yadlovker, D. E., Roy, D., de Aguiar-Rocha, L., & Sturmey, P. (2009). Equivalence class formation: a method for teaching statistical interactions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 575–593.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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, 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Fienup, D. M., Covey, D. P., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Teaching brain–behavior relationships economically with stimulus equivalence technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 19–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Galizio, M., Stewart, K. L., & Pilgrim, C. (2001). Clustering in artificial categories: an equivalence analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 609–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Galizio, M., Stewart, K. L., & Pilgrim, C. (2004). Typicality effects in contingency-based generalized equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 253–273.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gelman, S. A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 65–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Grehan, P. M. (1998). Depressed subjects’ formation of mood congruent and incongruent equivalence relations (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.Google Scholar
  54. Griffee, K., & Dougher, M. J. (2002). Contextual control of stimulus generalization and stimulus equivalence in hierarchical categorization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 433–447.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hall, G. (1980). Exposure learning in animals. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hayes, S. C. (1996). Developing a theory of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 309–311.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hayes, S. C., & Grundt, A. (1997). Metaphor, meaning, and relational frame theory. In C. Mandell & A. McCabe (Eds.), The problem of meaning: cognitive and behavioral perspectives (pp. 117–146). New York, NY: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Levels of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 181–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2016). Relational frame theory: the basic account. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 129–178). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  63. Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of the evolution of concepts. Psychological Monographs, 28, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kennedy, C. H. (1991). Equivalence class formation influenced by the number of nodes separating stimuli. Behavioural Processes, 24, 219–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lazar, R. M., & Kotlarchyk, B. J. (1986). Second-order control of sequence-class equivalences in children. Behavioural Processes, 13, 205–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lea, S. E. G. (1984). In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In H. L. Roitblatt, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 263–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Lea, S. E. G., & Harrison, S. N. (1978). Discrimination of polymorphous stimulus sets in pigeons. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 521–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Leslie, J. C., Tierney, K. J., Robinson, C. P., Keenan, M., Watt, A., & Barnes, D. (1993). Differences between clinically anxious and non-anxious subjects in a stimulus equivalence training task involving threat words. The Psychological Record, 43, 153–161.Google Scholar
  70. Lubow, R. E., Rifkin, B., & Alex, M. (1976). The context effect: the relationship between stimulus preexposure and environmental preexposure determined subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 38–47.Google Scholar
  71. Mackay, H., & Fields, L. (2009). Syntax, grammatical transformation, and productivity: a synthesis of stimulus sequences, equivalence classes, and contextual control. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding: applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities (pp. 209–236). London: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  72. McGlinchey, A., & Keenan, M. (1997). Stimulus equivalence and social categorization in Northern Ireland. Behavior and Social Issues, 7, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 195–213.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Meehan, E. F., & Fields, L. (1995). Contextual control of new equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 45, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mizael, T. M., de Almeida, J. H., Silviera, C. C., & de Rose, J. C. (2016). Changing racial bias by transfer of functions in equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 66, 451–462.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0185-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Moss-Lourenco, P., & Fields, L. (2011). Nodal structure and stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: post-class formation preference tests. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 343–368.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nartey, R. K., Arntzen, E., & Fields, L. (2015a). Enhancement of equivalence class formation by pre-training discriminative functions. Learning & Behavior, 43, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nartey, R. K., Arntzen, E., & Fields, L. (2015b). Training order and structural location of meaningful stimuli: effects on equivalence class formation. Learning and Behavior, 43, 342–353.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-015-0183-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nedelcu, R., Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2015). Conditional discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli and enhanced class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 349–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  82. Peoples, M., Tierney, K. J., Bracken, M., & McKay, C. (1998). Prior learning and equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 48, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Plaud, J. J. (1995). The formation of stimulus equivalences: fear-relevant versus fear-irrelevant stimulus classes. The Psychological Record, 45, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rehfeldt, R. A., & Root, S. (2004). The generalization and long-term retention of equivalence relations in adults with mental retardation. The Psychological Record, 54, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Reyes-Giordano, K., & Fienup, D. M. (2015). Emergence of topographical responding following equivalence-based neuroanatomy instruction. The Psychological Record, 65, 495–507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0125-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rosch, E. H., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Russell, B. (1950). An inquiry into meaning and truth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  88. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  89. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: a research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  90. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sommerville, W., & Whissell, C. (1994). Differences among slopes and intercepts for regression lines predicting children’s connotative and denotative knowledge of familiar and unfamiliar words on the basis of age. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 219–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sprinkle, E. C., & Miguel, C. F. (2012). The effects of listener and speaker training on emergent relations in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 111–117.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Steele, D. L., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Travis, R., 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tyndall, I., Roche, B., & James, J. E. (2004). The relation between stimulus function and equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 257–266.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tyndall, I., Roche, B., & James, J. E. (2009). The interfering effect of emotional stimulus functions on stimulus equivalence class formation: implications for the understanding and treatment of anxiety. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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, 615–633.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., & Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 235–246.Google Scholar
  101. Watt, A., Keenan, M., Barnes, D., & Cairns, E. (1991). Social categorization and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 41, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wright, A. A., Cook, R. G., Rivera, J. J., Sands, S. F., & Delius, J. D. (1988). Concept learning by pigeons: matching-to-sample with trial-unique video picture stimuli. Animal Learning and Behavior, 16, 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lanny Fields
    • 1
  • Erik Arntzen
    • 2
  1. 1.Queens College and the Graduate SchoolCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Oslo and Akershus University CollegeOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options