Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEilifsen, Christoffer
dc.contributor.authorArntzen, Erik
dc.date.accessioned2011-08-27T07:50:46Z
dc.date.available2011-08-27T07:50:46Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationEilifsen, C. & Arntzen, E. (2009). On the role of trial types in tests for stimulus equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 187-202en_US
dc.identifier.issn1502-1149
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/932
dc.description.abstractSome studies which have shown that differences in outcome on tests for stimulus equivalence dependent on different training structures, have run the tests as separate blocks without baseline trials interspersed in between test trials. Saunders and co-workers have argued that the differences in test outcome could be related to differences in the retention of trained discriminations during testing (R. R. Saunders, Drake, & Spradlin, 1999; R. R. Saunders & Green, 1999). In the current experiment, 20 adult participants were taught conditional relations by employing a linear series training structure. Following this training, non-reinforced trials of the directly trained relations were randomly interspersed in a mixed test for symmetry, transitivity, and global equivalence. After being exposed to the training procedure once, 17 of the participants did not perform in accord with stimulus equivalence, but 9 of these participants still responded in accord with the directly trained relations. After being exposed to the training procedure again, 10 participants still did not respond in accord with stimulus equivalence, while 7 out of these did respond consistent with the directly trained relations. This indicates that a “destroyed” baseline could not be responsible for these participants’ failure to respond in accord with stimulus equivalence. In addition the reaction time between the appearance of comparison stimuli and subsequent responding during the test were recorded. Data show that the average reaction time varies as a function of which type of relation that is presented. There were also distinct differences in reaction time patterns for those participants who responded in accord with stimulus equivalence compared to those not responding in such a manneren_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherNorwegian Association for Behavior Analysisen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Journal of Behavior Analysis;10(2)
dc.subjectVDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Psykologi: 260en_US
dc.subjectStimulus equivalenceen_US
dc.subjectLinear seriesen_US
dc.subjectAdultsen_US
dc.subjectBetinget diskriminasjonen_US
dc.titleOn the role of trial types in tests for stimulus equivalenceen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record