Matching-to-sample and stimulus-pairing-observation procedures in stimulus equivalence: The effects of number of trials and stimulus arrangement

Psychological Record

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 157-174

  Kinloch, Jennifer May ^a,b   McEwan, James Stewart Anderson ^a   Mary Foster, T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Associative learning; Humans; Matching to sample; Operant conditioning; Stimulus equivalence

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874097262     PISSN: 00332933     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.012     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ARNTZEN, E. (2006). Delayed matching to sample: Probability of responding in accord with equivalence as a function of different delays. The Psychological Record, 56(1), 135-167.
2. ARNTZEN, E., GRONDAHL, T., & EILIFSEN, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and the subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437-462.
3. ARNTZEN, E., & HOLTH, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. The Psychological Record, 47(2), 309-320.
4. ARNTZEN, E., & HOLTH, P. (2000). Equivalence outcome in single subjects as a function of training structure. The Psychological Record, 50, 603-628.
5. BARNES, D., HEGARTY, N., & SMEETS, P. M. (1997). Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: A relational framing model of complex human functioning. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 57-83.
6. BARNES-HOLMES, D., BARNES-HOLMES, Y., SMEETS, P. M., CULLINAN, V., & LEADER, G. (2004). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivalence: Conceptual and procedural issues. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4(2), 181-214.
7. 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.
8. BLACKLEDGE, J. T. (2003). An introduction to relational frame theory: Basics and applications. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 421-433.
9. CLAYTON, M. C., & HAYES, L. J. (2004). A comparison of match-to-sample and respondenttype training of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 54, 579-602.
10. DOUGHER, M. J., AUGUSTON, E., MARKHAM, M. R., & GREENWAY, D. E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62(3), 331-351.
11. FIELDS, L., ADAMS, B. J., VERHAVE, T., & NEWMAN, S. (1993). The effects of nodality on the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 345-358.
12. FIELDS, L., HOBBIE-REEVE, S. A., ADAMS, B. A., & REEVE, F. (1999). Effects of training directionality and class size on equivalence class formation by adults. The Psychological Record, 49, 703-724.
13. FIELDS, L., REEVE, K. F., VARELAS, A., ROSEN, D., & BELANICH, J. (1997). Equivalence class formation using stimulus-pairing and yes-no responding. The Psychological Record, 47(4), 661-686.
14. GREEN, G., SIGURDARDOTTIR, 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(3), 287-304.
15. HAYES, L. J., THOMPSON, S., & HAYES, S. C. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and rule following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52(3), 275-291.
16. HOLTH, P., & ARNTZEN, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81-110.
17. HOVE, O. (2003). Differential probability of equivalence class formation following a one-to-many versus a many-to-one training structure. The Psychological Record, 53, 617-634.
18. LAYNG, M. P., & CHASE, P. N. (2001). Stimulus-stimulus pairing, matching-to-sample, and emergent relations. The Psychological Record, 51, 605-628.
19. LEADER, G., BARNES, D., & SMEETS, P. M. (1996). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 46(4), 685-706.
20. LEADER, G., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (2001a). Establishing fraction-decimal equivalence using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 51, 151-165.
21. LEADER, G., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (2001b). Matching-to-sample and respondent-type training as methods for producting eqivalence relations: Isolating the critical variable. The Psychological Record, 51, 429-444.
22. LEADER, G., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & SMEETS, P. M., (2000). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure III. The Psychological Record, 50(1), 63-78.
23. MARKHAM, M. R., DOUGHER, M. J., & AUGUSTON, E. M. (2002). Transfer of operant discrimination and respondent elicitation via emergent relations of compound stimuli. The Psychological Record, 52(3), 325-350.
24. MINSTER, S. T., ELIFFE, D., & MUTHUKUMARASWAMY, S. D. (2011). Emergent stimulus relations depend on stimulus correlation and not on reinforcement contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95(3), 327-342. doi:10.1091 /jeab.201195-327
25. PILGRIM, C., & GALIZIO, M. (1990). Relations between baseline contingencies and equivalence probe performances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54(3), 214-224.
26. PILGRIM, C., & GALIZIO, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63(3), 225-238.
27. REHFELDT, R. A. (2003). Establishing contextual control over generalized equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 53(3), 415-428.
28. SAUNDERS, K. J., SAUNDERS, R. R., WILLIAMS, D. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1993). An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: Extending the analysis of equivalence [Special issue: Stimulus equivalence]. The Psychological Record, 43(4), 725-744.
29. SAUNDERS, R. R., DRAKE, K. M., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1999). Equivalence class establishment, expansion, and modification in preschool children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71(2), 195-214.
30. SAUNDERS, R. R., WACHTER, J., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49(1), 95-115.
31. SIDMAN, M. (1992). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15-28). Reno, NV: Context Press.
32. SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
33. SIDMAN, M. (2009). Equivalence relations and behaviour: An introductory tutorial. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 5-17.
34. 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(1), 5-22.
35. SMEETS, P. M., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (2005). Establishing equivalence classes in preschool children with one-to-many and many-to-one training protocols. Behavioural Processes, 69(3), 281-293. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2004.12. 09
36. SMEETS, P. M., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & ROCHE, B. (2001). Derived stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus relations in children and adults: Assessing training order effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 78, 130-154. doi:10.1006 /jecp.2000.2563
37. SMEETS, P. M., LEADER, G., & BARNES, D. (1997). Establishing stimulus classes in adults and children using a respondent-type training procedure: A follow-up study. The Psychological Record, 47(2), 285-308.
38. SMYTH, S., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & FORSYTH, J. P. (2006). A derived transfer of simple discrimination and self-reported arousal functions in spider fearful and nonspider-fearful participants. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(2), 223-246. doi:10.1901/jeab.2006.02-05
39. SPRADLIN, J. E., & SAUNDERS, R. R. (1986). The development of stimulus classes using match-to-sample procedures: Sample classification versus comparison classification [Special issue: Stimulus control research and developmental disabilities]. Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6(1/2), 41-58.
40. UNDERWOOD, B. J. (1949). Experimental psychology. New York, NY: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, Inc.