Profile

New User

New to Graphy Publications? Create an account to get started today.

Registered Users

Have an account? Sign in now.

How to Cite | Author Information | Publication History
International Journal of Psychology & Behavior Analysis Volume 6 (2020), Article ID 6:IJPBA-169, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.15344/2455-3867/2020/169
Research Article
Analysis of the Blocking Effect in Equivalence Classes Established by Match-to-Sample and Respondent-Type Training

Kristopher Brown

Department of Psychology, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA
Kristopher Brown, Department of Psychology, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA; E-mail: kjbrown@ysu.edu
27 September 2020; 03 December 2020; 05 December 2020
Brown K (2020) Analysis of the Blocking Effect in Equivalence Classes Established by Match-to-Sample and Respondent-Type Training. Int J Psychol Behav Anal 6: 169. doi: https://doi.org/10.15344/2455-3867/2020/169
© 2020 Brown. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. O'Neill J, Rehfeldt RA, Ninness C, Muñoz BE, Mellor J, et al. (2015) Learning Skinner's verbal operants: Comparing an online stimulus equivalence procedure to an assigned reading. Anal Verbal Behav 31: 255-266. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Critchfield TS (2018) Efficiency is everything: Promoting efficient practice by harnessing derived stimulus relations. Behav Anal Prac 11: 206-210. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Dymond S, Bennett M, Boyle S, Roche B, Schlund M, et al. (2017) Related to anxiety: Arbitrarily applicable relational responding and experimental psychopathology research on fear and avoidance. Perspect Behav Sci 41: 189-213. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Rehfeldt RA (2011) Toward a technology of derived stimulus relations: An analysis of articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1992-2009. J Appl Behav Anal 44: 109-119. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Walker BD, Rehfeldt RA (2012) An evaluation of the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach single-subject design to distance education students via blackboard. J Appl Behav Anal 45: 329-344. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Ruiz-Sánchez LJ, Luciano C, Guinther PM (2019) Derived false memories using a respondent-type (ReT) procedure. J Exp AnalBehav 111: 12-27. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Clayton MC, Hayes LJ (2004) A comparison of match-to-sample and respondent-type training of equivalence classes. Psychol Rec 54: 579-602. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dixon MR, Belisle J, Stanley CR, Daar JH, Williams LA, et al. (2016) Derived equivalence relations of geometry skills in students with autism: An application of the PEAK-E Curriculum. Anal Verbal Behav 32: 38-45. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Rehfelt RA, Hayes LJ (1998) The operant-respondent distinction revisited: Toward an understanding of stimulus equivalence. Psychol Rec 48: 187-210. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Solares L, Fryling MJ (2018) Further evaluation of the stimulus pairing observation procedure with children with autism spectrum disorder. Anal Verbal Behav 35: 85-93. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Leader G, Barnes-Holmes D (1996) Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. Psychol Rec 46: 685-706. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Avellaneda M, Menéndez J, Santillán M, Sánchez F, Idesis S, et al. (2016) Equivalence class formation is influenced by stimulus contingency. Psychol Rec 66: 477-487. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dickins DW (2015) A simpler route to stimulus equivalence? A replication and further exploration of a “simple discrimination training procedure” (Canovas, Debert and Pilgrim 2014). Psychol Rec 65: 637-647. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ruiz SLJ, Luciano C, Guinther PM (2019) Derived false memories using a respondent‐type (ReT) procedure. J Exp Anal Behav 111: 12-27. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Omori M, Yamamoto J (2013) Stimulus pairing training for Kanji reading skills in students with developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 34: 1109-1118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Kinloch JM, McEwan J, Foster TM (2013) Matching-to-sample and stimulus-pairing-observation-procedures in stimulus equivalence: The effect of number of trials and stimulus arrangement. Psychol Rec 63: 157-174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Leader G, Barnes-Holmes D (2001) Matching-to-sample and respondent-type training as methods for producing equivalence relations: Isolating the critical variable. Psychol Rec 51: 429-444. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Stromer R, McIlvane WJ, Serna RW (1993) Complex stimulus control and equivalence. Psychol Rec 43: 585-598. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Carpentier F, Smeets PM, Barnes-Holmes D (2000) Matching compound samples with unitary comparisons: Derived stimulus relations in adults and children. Psychol Rec 50: 671-685. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Groskreutz NC, Karsina A, Miguel CF, Groskreutz MP (2010) Using complex auditory–visual sample to produce emergent relations in children with autism. J Appl Behav Anal 43: 131-136. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Rosales R, Maderitz C, Garcia YA (2014) Comparison of simple and complex auditory‐visual conditional discrimination training. J Appl Behav Anal 47: 437-442. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Luque D, Vadillo MA, Gutiérrez-Cobo MJ, Le Pelley ME (2016) The blocking effect in associative learning involves learned biases in rapid attentional capture. Q J of Exp Psychol 71: 522-544. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Prados J, Alvarez B, Acebes F, Loy I, Sansa J, et al. (2013) Blocking in rats, humans, and snails using a within-subjects design. Behav Processes 100: 23-31. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Stock AK, Gohil K, Beste C (2017) Blocking effects in non-conditioned goal-directed behaviour. Brain Struct Funct 222: 2807-2818. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Rehfeldt RA, Dixon MR, Hayes LJ, Steele A (1998) Stimulus equivalence and the blocking effect. Psychol Rec 48: 647-664. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rehfeldt RA, Clayton M, Hayes LJ (1998) Blocking the formation of 5 member equivalence classes using complex samples. Mex J Behav Anal 24: 279-292.
  27. Vandbakk M, Olaff HS, Holth P (2020) Blocking of stimulus control and conditioned reinforcement. Psychol Rec 1: 1-14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Maes E, Krypotos AM, Boddez Y, Alfei Palloni JM, D'Hooge R, et al. (2018) Failures to replicate blocking are surprising and informative-Reply to Soto (2018). J Exp Psychol General 147: 603-610. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Beesley T, Le Pelley ME (2011) The influence of blocking on overt attention and associability in human learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 37: 114-120. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Soares-Filho PSD, de Carvalho LM, de Moraes Hamasaki EI, Campos HC, Perez WF, et al. (2019) Manual-observing procedure: An alternative to the investigation of stimulus control and equivalence classes in matching-to-sample. Psychol Rec 69: 165-174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Connor DA, Gould TJ (2016) The role of working memory and declarative memory in trace conditioning. Neurobiol of Learn Mem 134: 193-209. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Byrne BL, Rehfeldt RA, Aguirre AA (2014) Evaluating the effectiveness of the stimulus pairing observation procedure and multiple exemplar instruction on tact and listener responses in children with autism. Anal Verbal Behav 30: 160-169. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Rosales R, Rehfeldt RA, Huffman N (2012) Examining the utility of the stimulus pairing observation procedure with preschool children learning a second language. J Appl Behav Anal 45: 173-177. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Smyth S, Barnes-Holmes D, Forsyth JP (2006) A derived transfer of simple discrimination and self-reported arousal functions in spider fearful and non-spider-fearful participants. J Exp Anal Behav 85: 223-246. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Halverson HE, Khilkevich A, Mauk MD (2018) Cerebellar processing common to delay and trace eyelid conditioning. J Neurosci 38: 7221-7236. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Horne PJ, Lowe CF (1996) On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. J Exp Anal Behav 65: 185-241. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Carp CL, Petursdottir AI (2015) Intraverbal naming and equivalence class formation in children. J Exp Anal Behav 104: 223-240. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Tovar ÁE, Torres-Chavez A, Ruiz A (2015) Effects of verbal-labeled responses on stimulus class formation in a compound stimulus procedure. Mex J Behav Anal 41: 68-85. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Arntzen E (2012) Training and testing parameters in formation of stimulus equivalence: Methodological issues. Europ J Behav Anal 13: 123-135. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Saunders RR, Green G (1999) A discrimination analysis of training structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. J Exp AnalBehav 72: 117-137. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Sadeghi P, Arntzen E (2018) Eye-movements, training structures, and stimulus equivalence class formation. Psychol Rec 68: 461-476. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, Above IE 9.0 version
Privacy Policy | Copyright & Permissions
Copyright © 2013-2024 Graphy Publications, All Rights Reserved.