Generalized break equivalence I.
The present study attempted to produce generalized break equivalence responding with 5 adult subjects. A Generalized Break Equivalence Pattern (GBEP) involved responding in accordance with symmetry and transitivity but not with equivalence in new situations. That is, having been trained in two condi...
| Publicado en: | Psychological Record Vol. 51; no. 1; pp. 131 - 151 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Psychological Record
Winter2001
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507729516&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 507729516 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00332933 PSD jtl: Psychological Record issn: 00332933 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Winter2001 vid: 51 iid: 1 pid: 761 pub: Psychological Record artinfo: ui: 507729516 ppf: 131 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1011KB tig: atl: Generalized break equivalence I. aug: au: Gómez, Serafín Barnes-Holmes, Dermot Luciano, M. Carmen su: Association of ideas Discrimination learning sug: subj: Association of ideas Discrimination learning keyword: Association (Psychology) ab: The present study attempted to produce generalized break equivalence responding with 5 adult subjects. A Generalized Break Equivalence Pattern (GBEP) involved responding in accordance with symmetry and transitivity but not with equivalence in new situations. That is, having been trained in two conditional discriminations, A1-B1/A2-B2 and B1-C1/B2-C2, subjects should produce the following derived relations; B1-A1, B2-A2, C1-B1, C2-B2, A1-C1, A2-C2, C1-A2, C2-A1. To achieve this goal, in Phase 1 subjects were exposed to explicit training in broken symmetry (A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-A2, B2-A1) with 3 different stimulus sets (4 stimuli per set). They were then trained in symmetry (A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-A1, B2-A2) with 3 new sets (4 stimuli per set). In Phase 2, subjects were exposed to Train Standard Equivalence (i.e., training in the conditional discriminations A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-C1, B2-C2). Then they received Train Break Equivalence (i.e., training in the conditional discriminations B1-A1, B2-A2, C1-B1, C2-B2 {symmetry}; A1-C1, A2-C2 {transitivity}, C1-A2, C2-A1 {break equivalence}) and were finally exposed to a no-feedback condition with the relations trained during the Train Break Equivalence. This sequence was repeated with three different stimulus sets (6 stimuli per set). Finally, in Phase 3 subjects were tested for the generalization of the BEP with a new stimulus set (6 stimuli per set). In this phase subjects were exposed to Train Standard Equivalence and immediately after to a Generalization Test (GT). Three subjects showed a clear GBEP, 1 subject produced a very close result to the GBEP with errors on the transitive relation, and 1 subject failed to show the predicted pattern. These data provide some support for the suggestion that derived relational responding is an overarching or generalized operant class. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|