Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2004 Nov;82(3):253–273. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2004.82-253

Typicality effects in contingency-shaped generalized equivalence classes.

Mark Galizio 1, Katherine L Stewart 1, Carol Pilgrim 1
PMCID: PMC1285010  PMID: 15693522

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted using match-to-sample methodologies in an effort to model lexical classes, which include both arbitrary and perceptual relations between class members. Training in both experiments used a one-to-many mapping procedure with nonsense syllables as samples and eight sets of abstract stimuli as comparisons. These abstract stimuli differed along a number of dimensions, four of which were critical to the experimenter-defined class membership. Stimuli in some comparison sets included only one of the class-defining features, but stimuli in other sets included two, three, or all four of the critical features. After mastery of the baseline training, three types of probe tests were conducted: symmetry, transitivity/equivalence, and novel probe tests in which the training nonsense syllables served as samples, and comparisons were novel abstract stimuli that included one or more of the class-defining features. Symmetry and transitivity/equivalence probe tests showed that the stimuli used in training became members of equivalence classes. The novel stimuli also became class members on the basis of inclusion of any of the critical features. Thus these probe tests revealed the formation of open-ended generalized equivalence classes. In addition, typicality effects were observed such that comparison sets with more critical features were learned with fewer errors, responded to more rapidly, and judged to be better exemplars of the class. Contingency-shaped stimulus classes established through a match-to-sample procedure thus show several important behavioral similarities to natural lexical categories.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (192.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Armstrong S. L., Gleitman L. R., Gleitman H. What some concepts might not be. Cognition. 1983 May;13(3):263–308. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes D., Keenan M. A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jan;59(1):61–81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dougher M. J., Augustson E., Markham M. R., Greenway D. E., Wulfert E. The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Nov;62(3):331–351. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fields L., Reeve K. F., Adams B. J., Brown J. L., Verhave T. Predicting the extension of equivalence classes from primary generalization gradients: the merger of equivalence classes and perceptual classes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Jul;68(1):67–91. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fields L., Reeve K. F., Adams B. J., Verhave T. Stimulus generalization and equivalence classes: a model for natural categories. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 May;55(3):305–312. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Galizio M., Stewart K. L., Pilgrim C. Clustering in artificial categories: an equivalence analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Sep;8(3):609–614. doi: 10.3758/bf03196197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Green G., Sigurdardottir Z. G., Saunders R. R. The role of instructions in the transfer of ordinal functions through equivalence classes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 May;55(3):287–304. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harnad S. Experimental analysis of naming behavior cannot explain naming capacity. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):262–264. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Herrnstein R. J. Levels of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cognition. 1990 Nov;37(1-2):133–166. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90021-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Horne P. J., Lowe C. F. On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):185–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Murphy G. L., Brownell H. H. Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1985 Jan;11(1):70–84. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.11.1.70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pexman Penny M., Holyk Gregory G., Monfils Marie-H. Number-of-features effects and semantic processing. Mem Cognit. 2003 Sep;31(6):842–855. doi: 10.3758/bf03196439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pexman Penny M., Lupker Stephen J., Hino Yasushi. The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):542–549. doi: 10.3758/bf03196311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sidman M. Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jul;74(1):127–146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sidman M., Tailby W. Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES