Training by Stimulus Consistency and Equivalence Without Differential Consequences
Keywords:
Consistency, Stimulus equivalence, Differential consequences, HumansAbstract
Four undergraduate students without previous history as subjects were exposed to training in the formation of
conditional relations AB, AC, and AD, without differential consequences, and to symmetry and equivalence tests. A three
choice simultaneous match-to-samplc procedure was used, with usual figures. For each model, a positive stimulus (S+) was
paired consistently in all trials, while two negative stimuli (S-) were paired alternatively. Criterion was met when the subject's
responses were consistent on at least 35 of 36 trials in each block. The subjects responded consistently during training. Three
subjects performed consistently in the tests; one showed chance-level performance in symmetry tests, but responded consistently
in equivalence tests. These results indicate that conditional relations formed by consistency, without differential reinforcement,
were also equivalent relations, and indicate also that repetition of tests may be enough for teaching relations to be tested.
Downloads
References
on intersubject variability during equivalence class formation.
The Psychological Record, 43, 133-152.
Baptista, M.Q.G., Assis, G.J.A., Fontes, J.C.S., & Barros, C.W.L.
(1993, julho). Relações condicionais e de equivalência sem
conseqüências diferenciais através de um pareamento com o
modelo de múltipla escolha simultânea. Trabalho apresentado
na 45a Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso
da Ciência [SBPC], Recife, PE.
Bush, K.M., Sidman, M. & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control
of emergent equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 51, 29-45.
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.
Fields, L. Adams, B.J., Verhave, T. & Newman, S. (1993). Arc
stimuli in equivalence classes related to each other? The Psychological
Record, 43, 85-105.
Harrison, R.J. & Green, G. (1990). Development of conditional and
equivalence relations without differential consequences. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 225-237.
Lazar, M.R., Davis-Lang, D. & Sanchez, L. (1984). The formation
of visual stimulus equivalences in children. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41,25\ -266.
Saunders, R.S., Saunders, K.J., Kirby, K.C., & Spradlin, J.E.
(1988). The merger and development of equivalence classes by
unreinforccd selection of comparison stimuli. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 145-161.
Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis,
22, 1-8.
Sidman, M. (1992). Equivalence: Some basic considerations. Em
S.C. Hayes & L.J. Hayes (Orgs.), Understanding verbal relations
(pp. 15-27). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Sidman, M. &Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination versus
matching-to-samplc: An expansion of the testing paradigm.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22.
Sidman, M., Wilson-Morris, M. & Kirk, B. (1986). Matching-tosample
procedures and the development of equivalence relations:
The role of naming. Analysis and Intervention in
Development Disabilities, 6, 1-19.
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.
