NODAL STRUCTURE AND THE PARTITIONING OF EQUIVALENCE CLASSES
Corresponding Author
Lanny Fields
QUEENS COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Department of Psychology, Queens College/CUNY, 65-30 Kissena Boulevard, Flushing, New York, 11367 (e-mail: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorMari Watanabe-Rose
THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Lanny Fields
QUEENS COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Department of Psychology, Queens College/CUNY, 65-30 Kissena Boulevard, Flushing, New York, 11367 (e-mail: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorMari Watanabe-Rose
THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
By definition, all of the stimuli in an equivalence class have to be functionally interchangeable with each other. The present experiment, however, demonstrated that this was not the case when using post-class-formation dual-option response transfer tests. With college students, two 4-node 6-member equivalence classes with nodal structures of A→B→C→D→E→F were produced by training AB, BC, CD, DE' and EF. Then, unique responses were trained to the c and D stimuli in each class. The responses trained to c generalized to B and A, while the responses trained to D generalized to E and F. Thus, each 4-node 6-member equivalence class was bifurcated into two 3-member functional classes: A→B→C and D→E→F, with class membership precisely predicted by nodal structure. A final emergent relations test documented the intactness of the underlying 4-node 6-member equivalence classes. The coexistence of the interchangeability of stimuli in an equivalence class and the bifurcation of such a class in terms of nodal structure was explained in the following manner. The conditional discriminations that are used to establish a class also imposes a nodal structure on the stimuli in the class. Thus, the stimuli in the class acquire two sets of relational properties. if the format of a test trial allows only one response option per class, responding on those trials will be in accordance with class membership and will not express the effects of nodal distance. if the format of a test trial allows more than one response option per class, responding on those trials will be determined by the nodal structure of the class. Thus, the relational properties expressed by the stimuli in an equivalence class are determined by the discriminative function served by the format of a test trial.
REFERENCES
- Alligood, C. A., & Chase, P. (2007, May). Choices among stimuli in equivalence classes. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Convention of the Association of Behavior Analysis. San Diego.
- Augustson, E. M., & Dougher, M. J. (1997). The transfer of avoidance functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 28, 181–191.
- Barnes, D., Browne, M., Smeets, P., & Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three- to six-year old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405–430.
- Barnes-Holmes, D., Keane, J., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2000). A derived transfer of emotive functions as a means of establishing differential preferences for soft drinks. The Psychological Record, 50, 493–512.
- Belanich, J., & Fields, L. (2003). Generalized equivalence classes as response transfer networks. The Psychological Record, 53, 373–413.
- Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies and emergent relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 187–214.
- Bentall, R. P., Jones, R. M., & Dickins, D. W. (1998). Control over emergent relations during the formation of equivalence classes: Response error and latency data for 5-member classes. The Psychological Record, 49, 93–116.
- Buffington, D. M., Fields, L., & Adams, B. J. (1997). Enhancing the formation of equivalence classes by pretraining of other equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 47, 1–20.
- Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic memory. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
- Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–248.
- de Rose, J. C., McLlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1–20.
- 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.
- Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: The transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254.
-
Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). On memory: A contribution to experimental psychology: 1885. ( H. A. Ruger, &
C. E. Bussinius, Tr.) New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
10.1037/10011-000 Google Scholar
- Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1993). Are stimuli in equivalence classes equally related to each other? The Psychological Record, 45, 85–105.
- Fields, L., Adams, B. J., & Verhave, T. (1993). The effects of equivalence class structure on test performances. The Psychological Record, 43, 697–713.
- Fields, L., Adams, B.J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1990). The effects of nodality on the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 345–358.
- 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.
- Fields, L., & Moss, P. (In press). Effects of contingency and nodal structure on stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: History and Integration. European Journal of Behavior Analysis.
- Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Rosen, D., Varelas, A., Adams, B. J., Belanich, J., et al. (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.
- Fields, L., Tittelbach, D., Shamoun, K., Fitzer, A., Watanabe, M., & Matneja, P. (2007). The effect of training variables on the formation of linked perceptual classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 97–119.
- Fields, L., Varelas, A., Reeve, K. F., Belanich, J., Wadhwa, P., DeRosse, P., et al. (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.
- Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.
- Fields, L., Verhave, T., & Fath, S. (1984). Stimulu equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 143–157.
- Goldiamond, I. (1962). Perception. In A. J. Bachrach (Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 280–340). New York: Basic Books.
- Green, G., Sigurdardottir, Z. G., & Saunders, R. R. (1991). The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinal functions through equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 287–304.
- Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 119–137.
- Imam, A. A. (2001). Speed contingencies, number of stimulus presentations, and the effect in equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 265–288.
- 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.
- Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Kennedy, C. L. (1991). Equivalence class formation influenced by the number of nodes separating stimuli. Behavioral Processes, 24, 219–245.
- Kennedy, C. H., Itkonen, T., & Lindquist, K. (1994). Nodality effects during equivalence class formation: An extension to sight-word reading and concept development. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 673–683.
- Lachman, R., Lachman, J. L., & Butterfield, E. C. (1979). Cognitive psychology and information processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Lazar, R. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381–192.
- 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) Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Mackay, H. M., & Sidman, M. (1984). Teaching new behavior via equivalency relations. In P. H. Brooks, R. Sperber, & C. McCauley (Eds.), Learning and cognition in the mentally retarded (pp. 493–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- McLlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 195–213.
- Mechner, F. (1994). The revealed operant: A way to study the characteristics of individual occurrences of operant responses. Cambridge, MA Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.
-
Pilgrim, C., &
Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations or a correlation of classes? In T. R. Zentall, &
P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals. New York, NY: Elsevier Science B. v.
10.1016/S0166-4115(06)80109-3 Google Scholar
- Rehfeldt, R. A., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). The operant-respondent distinction revisited: toward an understanding of stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 187–210.
- Roche, B.' & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301.
- Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.
- Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA Authors Cooperative, Inc.
- 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.
- Slamecka, N. J. (1985). Ebbinghaus: Some associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 414–435.
- Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.
- Tomanari, G. Y., Sidman, M., Rubio, A. R., & Dube, W. V. (2006). Equivalence classes with requirements for short latencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 349–369.
-
Tonneau, F. (2002). Who can understand relational frame theory? A reply to Barnes-Holmes and Hayes.
European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 3, 95–102.
10.1080/15021149.2002.11434209 Google Scholar
- Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125–144.