The Effects of a Can’t-Answer Response Option and Instructions on Stimulus Equivalence

Duarte, Ângela Maria Menezes; Eikeseth, Svein; Rosales‐Ruiz, Jesús; Baer, Donald M.

doi:10.1007/bf03395294

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with those reported by Duarte et al (1998) and Innis et al (1998). In both these studies, however, subjects who used the default ("none" or "cannot answer") option on some trials responded accurately on other trials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Instructions, Stimulus Equivalence, and Stimulus Sorting: Effects of Sequential Testing Arrangements and a Default Option

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Instructions, Stimulus Equivalence, and Stimulus Sorting: Effects of Sequential Testing Arrangements and a Default Option

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When the stimulus pairs and the functions of the pair members were different from those used in the MTS baseline tasks (pREP equivalence), the subjects responded nondifferentially and systematically pressed or did not press (experiments 1-4), unless the conditions discouraged them from doing so (Experiment 5). Interestingly, similar negative test findings have been reported in a small number of equivalence studies involving MTS probes with an added default option ("none," "can't answer"), or in which subjects are given the opportunity to skip test trials (Duarte et al, 1998;Innis et al, 1998;Smeets et al, 2000c). In the study by Smeets et al (2000c), for example, subjects were given sheets showing baseline tasks (A-B, B-C) mixed with symmetry (B-A, C-B) and equivalence tasks (C-A).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Assessing stimulus equivalence with a precursor to the relational evaluation procedure

Smeets

Wijngaarden

Barnes‐Holmes

et al. 2004

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated that, after being trained on multiple match-to-sample (MTS) tasks (A-B, B-C), most human adults respond in accordance with symmetry (B-A, C-B) and equivalence (C-A) when measured with MTS tests and with a precursor to the Relational Evaluation Procedure (pREP). The latter procedure involves conditional go/no-go discrimination tasks, requiring subjects to press a bar during a 5s interval after the successive presentation of two same-class stimuli, and not to press after the presentation of two different-class stimuli (e.g. Ci -->Ai -->press, Ci -->Aj -->no press). The present study was an effort to replicate these findings. The study consisted of five experiments. Very few subjects evidenced pREP symmetry and equivalence unless they had (a) already demonstrated symmetry and equivalence in a MTS test before, or (b) received pREP pretraining with unrelated stimulus pairs and symmetry was tested before equivalence. Failures to show symmetry were always associated with pressing at or close to 50% of these trials. Failures to show equivalence were associated with pressing or not pressing on (almost) all trials. Current findings are similar to those obtained in equivalence studies involving MTS probes permitting the subjects not to respond to the designated comparisons.

show abstract

“…For example, when the training procedures do not ensure that individual discriminative relations among stimuli are stable, then reliable class-consistent responding does not occur (R. Saunders & Green, 1999). And when the testing conditions do not restrict responding to the relations used to test equivalence, classes do not form reliably (Duarte, Eikeseth, Rosales-Ruiz, & Baer, 1998;Innis, Lane, Miller, & Critchfield, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of Functional Equivalence and Stimulus Equivalence: Effects of Baseline Reversals

Wirth

Chase

2002

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional equivalence and stimulus equivalence classes were established, reversed, and tested for stability with college students. Functional stimulus classes were established using a task in which students were trained to say nonsense words in the presence of arbitrarily assigned sets of symbols. Computer-controlled speech-recognition technology was used to record and analyze students' vocal responses for accuracy. After the establishment of stimulus classes was demonstrated with a transfer-of-function test, the effects of reversing selected baseline simple discriminations were assessed during an additional transfer-of-function test and a follow-up test that occurred several weeks later. With the same students, stimulus equivalence classes were established and demonstrated with computerized matching-to-sample procedures. The effects of reversing selected baseline conditional discriminations also were assessed during a postreversal equivalence test and a follow-up test. Both functional stimulus classes and stimulus equivalence were sensitive to contingency reversals, but the reversals with stimulus equivalence closses affected stimulus class organization whereas reversals with functional stimulus classes did not. Follow-up performances were largely consistent with the original baseline contingencies. The similarities and differences between stimulus equivalence and functional equivalence are related to the specific contingencies that select responding in the presence of the stimuli that form the classes.

show abstract

The Effects of a Can’t-Answer Response Option and Instructions on Stimulus Equivalence

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

Instructions, Stimulus Equivalence, and Stimulus Sorting: Effects of Sequential Testing Arrangements and a Default Option

Instructions, Stimulus Equivalence, and Stimulus Sorting: Effects of Sequential Testing Arrangements and a Default Option

Assessing stimulus equivalence with a precursor to the relational evaluation procedure

Stability of Functional Equivalence and Stimulus Equivalence: Effects of Baseline Reversals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About