Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stimulus Sorting: A Quick and Sensitive Index of Equivalence Class Formation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fifty college students were given standard matching-to-sample-based training and testing to form three 5-member equivalence classes that had linear series training structures (A→B→C→D→E). A matching to sample (MTS) based derived-relations test was used to assess the emergence of the classes. Thereafter, 15 cards, each of which contained one of the 15 stimuli in the classes, were given to the participants who were asked to sort them into piles of “related” cards. There was a very high concordance between measures of equivalence-class formation produced by relation tests and sorting tests. In some cases, sorting tests appeared to be more sensitive to tracking class formation than the MTS-based derived-relations tests. In addition, sorting tests were administered in a fraction of the time needed to administer an MTS-based derived-relations test to document class formation. Finally, sorting test data were very easy to interpret, especially when findings other than experimenter-defined class formation was produced. Therefore, sorting may be a viable alternative for tracking equivalence class formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arntzen, E. (2004). Probability of equivalence formation: Familiar stimuli and training sequence. The Psychological Record, 54, 275–291. Retrieved from http://www.thepsychologicalrecord.siu.edu/.

  • Arntzen, E., Braaten, L. F., Lian, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2011). Response-to-sample requirements in conditional discrimination procedures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 505–522. Retrieved from http://www.ejoba.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belanich, L., & Fields, L. (1999). Tactual equivalence class formation and tactual-to-visual cross-modal transfer. The Psychological Record, 49, 75–91. Retrieved from http://www.thepsychologicalrecord.siu.edu/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29–45. doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.51-29.

  • Cowley, B. J., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D. (1992). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach name–face matching to adults with brain injuries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 461–475.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • deRose, J. J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Stimulus class formation and functional equivalence in moderately retarded individuals’ conditional discrimination. Behavioural Processes, 17, 167–175. doi:10.1016/0376-6357(88)90033-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRosse, P., & Fields, L. (2010). The contextually controlled, feature-mediated classification of symbols. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 225–246. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.93-225.

  • Doran, E., & Fields, L. (2012). All stimuli are equal, but some are more equal than others: measuring relational preferences within an equivalence class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98, 243–256. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-243. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23144503.

  • Dougher, M. J., Auguston, E. M., Markham, M. R., Wulfert, E., & Greenway, D. E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351. doi:10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331.

  • Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2001). Supplemental measures and derived stimulus relations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 19, 8–12. Retrieved from http://www.eahb.org/NewSitePages/BulletinHomepage.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eikeseth, S., & Smith, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes in high-functioning autistic children: the role of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 123–134. doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-123.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eilifsen, C., & Arntzen, E. (2009). On the role of trial types in tests for stimulus equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 187–202. http://www.ejoba.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilifsen, C., & Arntzen, E. (2011). Single-subject withdrawal designs in delayed matching-to-sample procedures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 152–172. Retrieved from http://www.ejoba.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 163–181. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.97-163.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, L., Doran, E., & Marroquin, M. (2009). Equivalence class formation in a trace stimulus pairing two-response format: Effects of response labels and prior programmed transitivity induction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 57–84. doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-57.

  • Fields, L., Garruto, M., & Watanabe, M. (2010). Varieties of stimulus control in matching-to-sample: a kernel analysis. The Psychological Record, 60, 3–26. Retrieved from http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/.

  • Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Varelas, A., Rosen, D., & Belanich, J. (1997). Equivalence class formation using stimulus-pairing and yes-no. The Psychological Record, 47, 661–686. Retrieved from http://thepsychologicalrecord.siuc.edu/index.html.

  • Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332. doi:10.1901/jeab.1987.48-317.

  • Fienup, D., & Dixon, M. (2006). Acquisition and maintenance of visual-visual and visual-olfactory equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6, 87–98. Retrieved from http://www.ejoba.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, G. (1990). Differences in development of visual and auditory-visual equivalence relations. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 260–270.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hove, O. (2003). Differential probability of equivalence class formation following a one-to-many versus a many-to-one training structure. The Psychological Record, 53, 617–634. Retrieved from http://www.thepsychologicalrecord.siu.edu/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazar, R., & Kotlarchyk, B. J. (1986). Second-order control of sequence-class equivalences in children. Behavioural Processes, 13, 205–215. doi:10.1016/0376-6357(86)90084-7.

  • Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. D. A., & Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Naming and categorization in young children: vocal tact training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 527–549. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.31-04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludvigson, H. W., & Caul, W. F. (1964). Relative effect of overlearning on reversal and nonreversal shifts with two and four sorting categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 301–306. doi:10.1037/h0042254.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, H. A., Wilkinson, K. M., Farrell, C., & Serna, R. W. (2011). Evaluating merger and intersection of equivalence classes with one member in common. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 87–105. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.96-87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Lourenco, P., & Fields, L. (2011). Nodal structure and stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: post-class formation preference tests. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 343–368. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.95-343.

  • Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: a class of correlations, or a correlation of classes? In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 173–195). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1977). Children’s sorting: A reinterpretation based on the nature of abstraction in natural categories. In R. C. Smart & M. S. Smart (Eds.), Readings in child development and relationships (2nd ed., pp. 140–148). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.

  • Sidman, M. (1992). Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 173–182. doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-173.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.

  • Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22. doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.

  • Sidman, M., Wynne, C. K., Maguire, R. W., & Barnes, T. (1989). Functional classes and equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 261–274. doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.52-261.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurdardottir, Z. G., Mackay, H. A., & Green, G. (2012). Stimulus equivalence, generalization, and contextual stimulus control in verbal classes. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 3–29. Retrieved from http://www.abainternational.org/TAVB.asp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, P., Dymond, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2000). Instructions, stimulus equivalence, and stimulus sorting: effects of sequential testing arrangements and a default option. The Psychological Record, 50, 339–354. Retrieved from http://www.thepsychologicalrecord.siu.edu/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomanari, G. Y., Sidman, M., Rubio, A. R., & Dube, W. V. (2006). Equivalence classes with requirements for short latencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 349–369. doi:10.1901/jeab.2006.107-04.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyndall, I. T., Roche, B., & James, J. E. (2004). The relation between stimulus function and equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 257–266. doi:10.1901/jeab.2004.81-257.

  • Vaughan, W., Jr. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36–42. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.14.1.36.

Download references

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest to declare concerning the three authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queens College of the City University of New York (CUNY) and the Graduate School of CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Lanny Fields

  2. Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway

    Erik Arntzen & Marie Moksness

Authors
  1. Lanny Fields
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erik Arntzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie Moksness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lanny Fields or Erik Arntzen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fields, L., Arntzen, E. & Moksness, M. Stimulus Sorting: A Quick and Sensitive Index of Equivalence Class Formation. Psychol Rec 64, 487–498 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0034-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0034-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation