Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior logoLink to The Analysis of Verbal Behavior
. 2003;19:55–89. doi: 10.1007/BF03392982

Predicting taxonomic and thematic relational responding

J Grayson Osborne, John Heath
PMCID: PMC2755412  PMID: 22477256

Abstract

Pairs of pictures were classified by the authors and others as related by identity (A—A), basic taxonomy (A—B), superordinate taxonomy (A—C), or by theme (A—D). Two-choice matching-to-sample trial types were composed of these same picture pairs in which the sample was common to the two stimulus pairs in each configuration and, together with the sample, each comparison exemplified one of the relations in the picture pair; that is: A(AB), A(AC), A(AD), A(BC), A(BD), and A(CD). In five experiments, for each picture pair, college students classified the relation (as taxonomic or thematic) and rated its strength (Exps 1, 3) or its similarity (Exp 4); others matched to sample the foregoing trial types only (Exps 2, 5), or they classified and rated, too (Exp 3). With exceptions, students classed most pairs as the authors did. They also collectively ordered relational strengths from (1) identity, (2) basic taxonomy, and (3) theme, to (4) superordinate taxonomy based, in part, on the similarity of sample and comparison. Subjects chose the comparisons of the more strongly related picture pairs in the matching-to-sample task on 90 percent or more of the configurations. Subjects' selections in two-choice, matching-to-sample configurations using natural stimuli may be based on existing stimulus control topographies such as those exhibited by ratings of the relations in a configuration.

Full text

PDF
55

Images in this article

59Figure 1
on p.59
70Figure 2
on p.70
71Figure 3
on p.71
77Figure 4
on p.77
78Figure 5
on p.78

Selected References

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

  1. Baldwin D. A. Clarifying the role of shape in children's taxonomic assumption. J Exp Child Psychol. 1992 Dec;54(3):392–416. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(92)90027-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Carrigan P. F., Sidman M. Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jul;58(1):183–204. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Carter D. E., Werner T. J. Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: a critical analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):565–601. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Denney N. W. Evidence for developmental changes in categorization criteria for children and adults. Hum Dev. 1974;17(1):41–53. doi: 10.1159/000271332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fenson L., Cameron M. S., Kennedy M. Role of perceptual and conceptual similarity in category matching at age two years. Child Dev. 1988 Aug;59(4):897–907. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gatch M. B., Osborne J. G. Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 May;51(3):369–378. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gelman R. Cognitive development. Annu Rev Psychol. 1978;29:297–332. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.29.020178.001501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lowenkron B. Some logical functions of joint control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 May;69(3):327–354. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McIlvane W. J., Dube W. V. Stimulus control shaping and stimulus control topographies. Behav Anal. 1992 Spring;15(1):89–94. doi: 10.1007/BF03392591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Osborne J. G., Calhoun D. O. Themes, taxons, and trial types in children's matching to sample: methodological considerations. J Exp Child Psychol. 1998 Jan;68(1):35–50. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1997.2420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ray B. A. Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):539–550. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. Stromer R., Osborne J. G. Control of adolescents' arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 May;37(3):329–348. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Waxman S. R., Namy L. L. Challenging the notion of a thematic preference in young children. Dev Psychol. 1997 May;33(3):555–567. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.33.3.555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Analysis of Verbal Behavior are provided here courtesy of Association for Behavior Analysis International

RESOURCES