Effects of two sorting formats and four test criteria on equivalence class formation.

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Erik Arntzen, Lanny Fields
{"title":"Effects of two sorting formats and four test criteria on equivalence class formation.","authors":"Erik Arntzen, Lanny Fields","doi":"10.1002/jeab.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The likelihood of forming equivalence classes was influenced by the format used in sorting tests and by four different test criteria applied to the same data set.  After 30 participants learned 12 conditional discriminations, MTS tests evaluated the emergence of three 5-member equivalence classes. These tests were followed by sorting tests that were conducted in clustering or stacking formats. After training, 20% of participants formed the classes. Of the 75% who did not, classes emerged for 36% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of consecutive class-indicative sorts in the first two sorting tests, and by 45% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of two successive class-indicative sorts in any of the four sorting tests. Overall, a somewhat higher percentage of participants formed classes during stacking than during clustering, sometimes on a delayed basis. Finally, even higher yields were obtained when criterion was defined as two nonconsecutive class-indicative sorting tests. When classes did not form, clustering rather than stacking tests generated larger proportions of stereotyped, participant-defined, three-member classes and two-term relations but stacking generated more one-stimulus \"groupings.\" Thus, class formation was influenced by sorting format and the criteria used to define class emergence. Also, sorting influenced performances even during failed class formation.</p>","PeriodicalId":17411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.70017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The likelihood of forming equivalence classes was influenced by the format used in sorting tests and by four different test criteria applied to the same data set.  After 30 participants learned 12 conditional discriminations, MTS tests evaluated the emergence of three 5-member equivalence classes. These tests were followed by sorting tests that were conducted in clustering or stacking formats. After training, 20% of participants formed the classes. Of the 75% who did not, classes emerged for 36% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of consecutive class-indicative sorts in the first two sorting tests, and by 45% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of two successive class-indicative sorts in any of the four sorting tests. Overall, a somewhat higher percentage of participants formed classes during stacking than during clustering, sometimes on a delayed basis. Finally, even higher yields were obtained when criterion was defined as two nonconsecutive class-indicative sorting tests. When classes did not form, clustering rather than stacking tests generated larger proportions of stereotyped, participant-defined, three-member classes and two-term relations but stacking generated more one-stimulus "groupings." Thus, class formation was influenced by sorting format and the criteria used to define class emergence. Also, sorting influenced performances even during failed class formation.

两种分类格式和四种检验标准对等价类形成的影响。
形成等价类的可能性受到排序测试中使用的格式和应用于同一数据集的四种不同测试标准的影响。在30名参与者学习了12种条件歧视之后,MTS测试评估了三个5人等价类的出现。在这些测试之后,以聚类或堆叠格式进行排序测试。培训后,20%的参与者组成了班级。75%的人没有,类出现了36%和15%的参与者在堆叠和聚类,分别在前两个排序测试连续类指示排序的标准,45%和15%的参与者在堆叠和聚类,分别有两个连续类指示排序的标准,在任何四个排序测试。总体而言,在堆叠过程中形成类的参与者百分比略高于在聚类过程中,有时是延迟的。最后,当标准被定义为两个非连续的类别指示分类测试时,获得了更高的收率。当类别没有形成时,聚类测试比堆叠测试产生更大比例的刻板印象、参与者定义、三人类别和两项关系,但堆叠测试产生更多的单一刺激“分组”。因此,类的形成受到排序格式和用于定义类出现的标准的影响。此外,即使在班级组建失败时,排序也会影响表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is primarily for the original publication of experiments relevant to the behavior of individual organisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信