Verbal discrimination reversal as a function of overlearning and percentage of items reversed.

Acquired equivalence of correct alternatives after verbal discrimination learning.

“…These results help to explain "rule" effects in verbal discrimination performance. Paul (1966Paul ( , 1968) reported that verbal discrimination (VD) reversal shifts, on 12-pair lists, were accomplished in virtually one trial. Specifically, on the first unannounced reversal trial, overtrained 5s made about 4-6 consecutive errors (i.e., emitted the old correct alternatives), made no further errors on that trial, and achieved errorless performance on the second trial.…”

Acquired (conditional) equivalence: A basis for response-set effects in verbal-discrimination reversal performance.

“…Thus, if in a VD reversal (transfer) task, nonreinforcement of a correct preshift response activates a suppression tendency (i.e., "self-instruction to suppress the nonreinforced response"), then that suppression tendency may be expected to generalize to all other response items in the equivalence class. This analysis helps to explain a number of VD transfer phenomena, e.g., one-trial VD reversal-shift performance (Paul, 1966(Paul, , 1968) and onetrial elimination of preshift responses in a three-alternative VD shift (Paul, Callahan, Mereness, & Wilhelm, 1968), etc.Conventional operations for establishing equivalence classes were not explicitly present in the aforementioned experiments. Hence, to strengthen the analysis it is desirable to demonstrate that when such operations are present, VD-reversal performance is affected in the expected way.A 50% reversal shift, ordinarily a difficult task, should be made considerably easier if 1 The present experiments were supported, in part, by Grant GB7397 from the National Science Foundation.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Coleman…”

“…Thus, if in a VD reversal (transfer) task, nonreinforcement of a correct preshift response activates a suppression tendency (i.e., "self-instruction to suppress the nonreinforced response"), then that suppression tendency may be expected to generalize to all other response items in the equivalence class. This analysis helps to explain a number of VD transfer phenomena, e.g., one-trial VD reversal-shift performance (Paul, 1966(Paul, , 1968) and onetrial elimination of preshift responses in a three-alternative VD shift (Paul, Callahan, Mereness, & Wilhelm, 1968), etc.…”

Interpair acoustic and formal similarity in verbal discrimination learning.

“…Of theoretical interest is the finding that Type 2 errors predominate in all three similarity conditions. The 5s are known to behave according to Rule 2 when it is indeed most efficient for them to do so, for example, when Rule 2 is applicable to 75% of the VD list (Paul, 1966), or even to 67% of the VD pairs (Raskin, Boice, Rubel, & Clark, 1968). Frequency theory provides no adequate explanation for the predominance of Rule 2 in a situation where Rules 1 and 2 each apply to 50% of the VD list.…”