Search

In two experiments, we examined the disruptive effects of a "can't answer" response option (CARO) on equivalence formation. The first experiment was a systematic replication of Duarte, Eikeseth, Rosales-Ruiz, and Baer (1998), in which participants in a CARO group and a No-CARO group performed conditional discrimination tasks with abstract stimuli using a paper-and-pencil format for training and testing of equivalence relations. The presence of the CARO led to the nonemergence of equivalence classes. In the second experiment, participants performed conditional discrimination tasks using standard matching-to-sample training and testing procedures on a computer with CARO available only during testing. Equivalence yields were also low, with participants using CARO more on transitive and equivalence trials than on symmetry trials. The results support previous reports of equivalence disruption by nonresponse options such as CARO and suggest directions for further research. (Contains 3 tables and 4 figures.)

A within-participant comparison of simple-to-complex, complex-to-simple, and simultaneous protocols was conducted establishing different sets of three 7-member equivalence classes for 4 undergraduate students. The protocols were implemented under either accuracy-only or accuracy-plus-speed conditions while keeping number of presentations of training and testing trials equal. The results partially support previous reports of differential effects on acquisition, with participants completing more blocks in training under the simultaneous than the complex-to-simple and the simple-to-complex protocols. Across the protocols, however, the number of trials completed to criterion did not vary systematically. More important, response speed and accuracy did not decrease as a function of nodal number, with or without the speed contingency, or under any protocol. The latter results challenge the generality of previous reports of the nodality effect and the notion of "relatedness" of equivalence-class members, and support a reinforcement-contingency, instead of a structural, perspective on equivalence-class formation. (Contains 5 figures and 4 tables.)

Psychology is undergoing major cultural changes methodologically, with efforts to redefine how psychologists analyze and report their data. Davidson (2018) argued that psychology's methodological crises stem from mechanical objectivity involving the adoption of an analytic tool as source of dependable knowledge. This has led to institutionalization, and eventually uncritical ritualistic use, such as happened with null hypothesis statistical testing. Davidson invoked the mythological symbol of the Ouroboros to represent the endless churning of statistical fads. Sidman (1960), in his Tactics of Scientific Research provided a shield from these problems in terms of the premium he placed on the experience, expertise, judgement, and decision‐making of the scientist, that appear to be absent in psychology's ritualized processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experiments with 2 monkeys who earned their daily food rations by depositing tokens into one of two slots are conducted. Results suggest that reinforcer stock is distinct from reinforcer flow and the monkeys are capable of maximizing the former at the expense of the latter.

Performances are compared based on conditional discrimination task by conducting two experiments using single-participant designs with and without speed contingencies. The nodality effect and on the notion of relatedness among class members and reinforcement-contingency account of equivalence class formation are analyzed.