Superordinate categorization via learned stimulus equivalence: Quantity of reinforcement, hedonic value, and the nature of the mediator

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 252-268

  Astley, Suzette L ^a   Peissig, Jessie J ^b   Wasserman, Edward A ^b  

^a Hospital for Special Surgery   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFFECT; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MOTIVATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PIGEONS AND DOVES; REINFORCEMENT;

AFFECT; ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; COLUMBIDAE; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; MOTIVATION; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 0035408560     PISSN: 00977403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.27.3.252     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Adobe Photoshop 4.0 [Computer software]. (1989). San Jose, CA: Adobe Systems.
2. Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1992). Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons: All negative stimuli are not created equal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 193-207.
3. Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1996). Mediating associations, essentialism, and nonsimilarity-based categorization. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 111-133). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
4. Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1998a). Novelty and functional equivalence in superordinate categorization by pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 26, 125-138.
5. Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1998b). Object concepts: Behavioral research with animals and young children. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Learning and behavior therapy (pp. 440-463). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1999). Superordinate category formation in pigeons: Association with a common delay or probability of food reinforcement makes perceptually dissimilar stimuli functionally equivalent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 1-18.
7. Chen, S., Swartz, K. B., & Terrace, H. S. (1997). Knowledge of the ordinal position of list items in rhesus monkeys. Psychological Science, 8, 80-86.
8. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 265-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Delius, J. D., Ameling, M., Lea, S. E. G., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1995). Reinforcement concordance induces and maintains stimulus associations in pigeons. Psychological Record, 45, 283-297.
10. Dugdale, N., & Lowe, C. F. (1990). Naming and stimulus equivalence. In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behavior analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 115-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Goeters, S., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1992). The differential outcomes effect. Psychological Record, 42, 389-411.
12. Hall, G. (1996). Learning about associatively activated stimulus representations: Implications for acquired equivalence and perceptual learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 24, 233-255.
13. Hayes, S. C. (1989). Nonhumans have not yet shown stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 385-392.
14. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185-241.
15. Hull, C. L. (1939). The problem of stimulus equivalence in behavior theory. Psychological Review, 46, 9-30.
16. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
17. Hypercard 2.3 [Computer software]. (2001). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer.
18. Kendler, H. H., & Kendler, T. S. (1975). From discrimination learning to cognitive development: A neobehavioristic odyssey. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 191-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20. Lawrence, D. H. (1949). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: I. Transfer between discriminations on the basis of familiarity with the stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 770-784.
21. Lawrence, D. H. (1950). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: II. Selective association in a constant stimulus situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 175-188.
22. McIntire, K. D., Cleary, J., & Thompson, T. (1987). Conditional relations by monkeys: Reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 279-285.
23. Nakagawa, E. (1986). Overtraining, extinction, and shift learning in a concurrent discrimination in rats. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 313-326.
24. Nakagawa, E. (1992). Effects of overtraining on reversal learning by rats in concurrent and single discriminations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 37-56.
25. Orlov, T., Yakovlev, V., Hochstein, S., & Zohary, E. (2000). Macaque monkeys categorize images by their ordinal number. Nature, 404, 77-80.
26. Osgood, C. E. (1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Reese, H. W. (1972). Acquired distinctiveness and equivalence cues in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13, 171-182.
28. Rescorla, R. A. (1992). Response-outcome versus outcome-response associations in instrumental learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 20, 223-232.
29. Rescorla, R. A. (1994). Transfer of instrumental control mediated by a devalued outcome. Animal Learning and Behavior, 22, 27-33.
30. Rescorla, R. A., & Colwill, R. M. (1989). Associations with anticipated and obtained outcomes in instrumental learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 17, 291-303.
31. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
32. Saunders, K. J. (1989). Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 379-384.
33. Saunders, K. J., Williams, D. C., & Spradlin, J. E. (1996). Derived stimulus control: Are there differences among procedures and processes? In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 55-70). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
34. Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sea lion (salophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. Psychological Record, 43, 823-839.
35. Schusterman, R. J., Kastak, D., & Reichmuth, C. J. (1997). What's in a name? Equivalence by any other name would smell as sweet. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 252-258.
36. Schusterman, R. J., Reichmuth, C. J., & Kastak, D. (2000). How animals classify friends and foes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 1-6.
37. Sidman, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behavior analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
39. Sidman, M., Wynne, C. K., Maguire, R. W., & Barnes, T. (1989). Functional classes and equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 261-274.
40. Spiker, C. C. (1956). Experiments with children on the hypotheses of acquired distinctiveness and equivalence of cues. Child Development, 27, 253-263.
41. Steirn, J. N., Jackson-Smith, P., & Zentall, T. R. (1991). Mediational use of internal representations of food and no-food events by pigeons. Learning and Motivation, 22, 353-365.
42. Trapold, M. A., & Overmier, J. B. (1972). The second learning process in instrumental learning. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Research and theory (pp. 427-452). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
43. Underwood, B. J. (1966). Experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Meredith.
44. Urcuioli, P. J. (1996). Acquired equivalences and mediated generalization in pigeon's matching to sample. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 55-70). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
45. Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. (1994). On the relationship between differential outcomes and differential sample responding in matching-to-sample. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 249-263.
46. Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. B. (1997). Further tests of response-outcome associations in differential-outcome matching-to-sample. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 171-182.
47. Urcuioli, P. J., DeMarse, T. B., & Zentall, T. R. (1998). Transfer across delayed discriminations: II. Differences in the substitutability of initial versus test stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 47-59.
48. Urcuioli, P. J., & Honig, W. K. (1980). Control of choice in conditional discriminations by sample-specific behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 251-271.
49. Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T. R., & DeMarse, T. (1995). Transfer to derived sample-comparison relations by pigeons following many-to-one versus one-to-many matching with identical training relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 158-178.
50. Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T. R., Jackson-Smith, P., & Steirn, J. N. (1989). Evidence for common coding in many-to-one matching: Retention, intertriai interference, and transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 264-273.
51. Vaughn, W., Jr. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36-42.
52. Wasserman, E. A., & Astley, S. L. (1994). A behavioral analysis of concepts: Its application to pigeons and children. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 73-132). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
53. Wasserman, E. A., & DeVolder, C. L. (1993). Similarity- and nonsimilarity-based conceptualization in children and pigeons. Psychological Record, 43, 779-793.
54. Wasserman, E. A., DeVolder, C. L., & Coppage, D. J. (1992). Nonsimilarity-based conceptualization in pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychological Science, 3, 374-379.
55. Zentall, T. R. (1998a). Stimulus class formation in animals. In K. H. Pribram (Ed.), Brain and values (pp. 77-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Zentall, T. R. (1998b). Symbolic representation in animals: Emergent stimulus relations in conditional discrimination learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 26, 363-377.
57. Zentall, T. R. (2000). Symbolic representation by pigeons. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 118-123.
58. Zentall, T. R., & Sherburne, L. M. (1994). Role of differential sample responding in the differential outcomes effect involving delayed matching by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 390-410.
59. Zentall, T. R., Sherburne, L. M., & Steirn, J. N. (1992). Development of excitatory backward associations during the establishment of forward associations in a delayed conditional discrimination by pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 20, 199-206.
60. Zentall, T. R., Sherburne, L. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1995). Coding of hedonic and nonhedonic samples by pigeons in many-to-one delayed matching. Animal Learning and Behavior, 23, 189-196.
61. Zentall, T. R., Steirn, J. N., Sherburne, L. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1991). Common coding in pigeons assessed through partial versus total reversals of many-to-one conditional and simple discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 194-201.