1998
DOI: 10.3758/bf03199207
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transfer of performance to new comparison choices following differential outcome matching-to-sample

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
11
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It therefore seems that an association between comparisons and differential outcomes for correct choice responses, independently of sample stimuli, are sufficient to create a DOE. This result, and the results of other studies in which samples were not correlated with outcomes (e.g., DeMarse & Urcuioli, 2005), are consistent with the possibility that differential-outcome expectancies can arise from serial sample-comparison compounds, as suggested by Urcuioli, DeMarse, and Lionello (1998).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…It therefore seems that an association between comparisons and differential outcomes for correct choice responses, independently of sample stimuli, are sufficient to create a DOE. This result, and the results of other studies in which samples were not correlated with outcomes (e.g., DeMarse & Urcuioli, 2005), are consistent with the possibility that differential-outcome expectancies can arise from serial sample-comparison compounds, as suggested by Urcuioli, DeMarse, and Lionello (1998).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…(1996,1997) showed that differential R-O relations in the absence of differential S-O relations in training were sufficient to support the subsequent transfer of those responses to other stimuli later paired with the different outcomes (see also Urcuioli, DeMarse, & Lionello, 1998). In other words, those stimuli preferentially occasioned the comparison responses from training with which they shared a common outcome.…”
Section: S-o and R-o Relations: The Role Of Anticipated Versus Conseqmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…In other words, the combination of the comparison alternatives presented during the choice phase of a matching trial along with the sample stimulus that preceded them reliably predicts the outcome scheduled to occur for a correct response. This modified version of two-process theory states that differential-outcome expectancies can arise from serial compounds consisting of each sample stimulus plus the choice alternatives that follow it (DeMarse, 1997;Urcuioli & DeMarse, 1997;Urcuioli, DeMarse, & Lionello, 1998;; see also Colwill & Rescorla, 1990, p. 80). If so, this correctly predicts a differential-outcome effect under conditions in which the sample stimuli by themselves do not signal which outcome is scheduled (DeMarse & Urcuioli, 1993).…”
Section: For Evaluating the Relative Contributions Of R-o And S-o Assmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Our conclusions could also have been strengthened by the inclusion of data on sampledirected behaviors, which may have been substantially different towards food and no-food associated samples under DO, and which difference has itself been shown to be a one source of behavioral control (Urcuioli & DeMarse, 1994), just as Trapold and Overmier (1972) have suggested. The overall levels of performance in the probe test under conditions Expectancy were low relative to regular trial performance in the New Task; this difference may be due to probe testing taking place under extinction conditions rather than retraining in a new task (Urcuioli et al, 1998).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The view that reinforcer-specific expectancies have discriminative, behavior-controlling properties is supported by studies that show that reversing or eliminating DO following initial training causes performance to deteriorate, even when no other aspects of the task are changed (Honig, Matheson, & Dodd, 1984;Peterson, Wheeler, & Armstrong, 1978), and by findings that matching-to-sample (MTS) performance under DO readily transfers to novel sample stimuli that have been differentially associated off-baseline with the same outcomes as the samples used in training or to comparison stimuli trained in a separate MTS task (Kruse et al, 1983;Urcuioli, DeMarse, & Lionello, 1998). Some investigators have questioned whether expectancies merely provide redundant stimulus control that is additive to control provided by the discriminative stimuli.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%