TY - JOUR
T1 - Establishing stimulus classes in adults and children using a respondent-type training procedure
T2 - A follow-up study
AU - Smeets, Paul M.
AU - Leader, Geraldine
AU - Barnes, Dermot
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - This study examined the effects of a successive stimulus pairing procedure (respondent training) on tormation of conditional discriminations and equivalence classes. Different training protocols (linear, many-to-one, one-to-many), and training and test arrangements (simultaneous, simple-to-complex) were used. A simultaneous protocol was used in Experiment 1. During training, adults were exposed to multiple random series of stimulus pairs. Stimuli of the same pair were presented one after the other (e.g., A1→B1, C1→B1, A2→B2, C2→B2, A3 →B3, C3→B3). These series were followed by a match-to-sample test series involving symmetry probes (e.g., B-A, B-C) mixed with equivalence probes (A-C). Experiments 2 through 4 involved preschool children. Experiment 2 was a modified replication of Experiment 1 (Observing A→B and C→B. Testing A-B, C-B, A-C, and vice versa). Experiment 3 was the same except that a simple-to-complex protocol was used (e.g., training A→B, testing A-B and B-A, training C→B, testing B-C and C-B, and testing A-C and C-A). Experiment 4 was the same as Experiment 3 except that only symmetry and equivalence relations were tested (e.g., training A→B, testing B-A, training C→B, testing B-C, and testing C-A). Symmetry and equivalence were obtained most quickly with adults trained on simultaneous many-to-one protocols. With children, however, the simultaneous protocol was not effective. The simple-to-complex protocol produced much better results which were virtually the same for all training arrangements (linear, many-to-one, one-to-many).
AB - This study examined the effects of a successive stimulus pairing procedure (respondent training) on tormation of conditional discriminations and equivalence classes. Different training protocols (linear, many-to-one, one-to-many), and training and test arrangements (simultaneous, simple-to-complex) were used. A simultaneous protocol was used in Experiment 1. During training, adults were exposed to multiple random series of stimulus pairs. Stimuli of the same pair were presented one after the other (e.g., A1→B1, C1→B1, A2→B2, C2→B2, A3 →B3, C3→B3). These series were followed by a match-to-sample test series involving symmetry probes (e.g., B-A, B-C) mixed with equivalence probes (A-C). Experiments 2 through 4 involved preschool children. Experiment 2 was a modified replication of Experiment 1 (Observing A→B and C→B. Testing A-B, C-B, A-C, and vice versa). Experiment 3 was the same except that a simple-to-complex protocol was used (e.g., training A→B, testing A-B and B-A, training C→B, testing B-C and C-B, and testing A-C and C-A). Experiment 4 was the same as Experiment 3 except that only symmetry and equivalence relations were tested (e.g., training A→B, testing B-A, training C→B, testing B-C, and testing C-A). Symmetry and equivalence were obtained most quickly with adults trained on simultaneous many-to-one protocols. With children, however, the simultaneous protocol was not effective. The simple-to-complex protocol produced much better results which were virtually the same for all training arrangements (linear, many-to-one, one-to-many).
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/0031525088
U2 - 10.1007/BF03395226
DO - 10.1007/BF03395226
M3 - Article
SN - 0033-2933
VL - 47
SP - 285
EP - 308
JO - Psychological Record
JF - Psychological Record
IS - 2
ER -