Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1990 May;53(3):345–358. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-345

The effects of nodality on the formation of equivalence classes.

L Fields 1, B J Adams 1, T Verhave 1, S Newman 1
PMCID: PMC1322962  PMID: 2341819

Abstract

A four-member equivalence class (A----B----C----D) can be formed by training AB, BC, and CD. The nodal stimuli, B and C, mediate all of the derivative (transitive and equivalence) relations in the class. The derivative relations AC, CA, BD, and DB are separated by one node, whereas AD and DA are separated by two nodes. How do the number of nodes that separate the stimuli in a derivative relation influence the induction of stimulus control exerted by that relation? Seven college students learned two four-member classes made up of nonsense syllables. After training, all derivative relations were presented repeatedly without informative feedback. Stimulus control exerted by each derivative relation was assessed concurrently. For the 7 subjects, control exerted by the derivative relations increased gradually with repeated presentations. With 6 of the 7 subjects, the one-node relations exerted more control than the two-node relations during the process. However, the disparity between the one- and two-node relations decreased with repeated presentations. Eventually, all derivative relations exerted complete control. The control exerted by derivative relations during induction was inversely related to the number of nodes separating the terms in the derivative relations. These results demonstrate that nodal distance is a determinant of the relatedness of stimuli in equivalence classes. The findings are discussed in terms of remote association, semantic memory networks, and the study of transitive inference.

Full text

PDF
345

Selected References

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

  1. Anderson J. R. Concepts, propositions, and schemata: what are the cognitive units? Nebr Symp Motiv. 1980;28:121–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BUGELSKI B. R. A remote association explanation of the relative difficulty of learning nonsense syllables in a serial list. J Exp Psychol. 1950 Jun;40(3):336–348. doi: 10.1037/h0057259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bryant P. E., Trabasso T. Transitive inferences and memory in young children. Nature. 1971 Aug 13;232(5311):456–458. doi: 10.1038/232456a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bush K. M., Sidman M., de Rose T. Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Jan;51(1):29–45. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Constantine B., Sidman M. Role of naming in delayed matching-to-sample. Am J Ment Defic. 1975 May;79(6):680–689. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. DALLETT K. M. IN DEFENSE OF REMOTE ASSOCIATIONS. Psychol Rev. 1965 Mar;72:164–168. doi: 10.1037/h0021774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Devany J. M., Hayes S. C., Nelson R. O. Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Nov;46(3):243–257. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fields L., Verhave T., Fath S. Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Jul;42(1):143–157. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fields L., Verhave T. The structure of equivalence classes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Sep;48(2):317–332. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hayes S. C. Nonhumans have not yet shown stimulus equivalence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 May;51(3):385–392. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lazar R. M., Davis-Lang D., Sanchez L. The formation of visual stimulus equivalences in children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 May;41(3):251–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. SLAMECKA N. J. AN INQUIRY INTO THE DOCTRINE OF REMOTE ASSOCIATIONS. Psychol Rev. 1964 Jan;71:61–76. doi: 10.1037/h0048854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Saunders R. R., Wachter J., Spradlin J. E. Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jan;49(1):95–115. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sidman M., Kirk B., Willson-Morris M. Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Jan;43(1):21–42. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sidman M., Rauzin R., Lazar R., Cunningham S., Tailby W., Carrigan P. A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):23–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidman M. Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. J Speech Hear Res. 1971 Mar;14(1):5–13. doi: 10.1044/jshr.1401.05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Thayer E. S., Collyer C. E. The development of transitive inference: a review of recent approaches. Psychol Bull. 1978 Nov;85(6):1327–1343. [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