Predicting taxonomic and thematic relational responding.
Pre-rate stimulus relatedness and pick the strongest pairs first to cut errors in equivalence training.
01Research in Context
What this study did
College students sat at a computer and picked the picture pair that "went together best."
The pairs were either taxonomic (two fruits) or thematic (dog and bone).
Before the test, another group had rated how strongly each pair was related.
What they found
Students almost always chose the pair that had the highest pre-rating.
Stronger relations gave 90 % or better matching accuracy.
The pre-ratings predicted the answers like a cheat sheet.
How this fits with other research
Carmien et al. (2008) ran a similar picture-matching task with adults who have ID. They used icons instead of photos and got poor results. The two studies seem to clash, but the trouble was picture type, not the task.
Tassé et al. (2013) used the same pick-the-stronger-stimulus method to find which social interactions work as reinforcers. Their success shows the trick travels beyond pictures.
Paul et al. (1987) asked whether verbal rules help stimulus choices. Grayson skips rules and lets pre-rated strength do the work, giving a faster path to accurate responding.
Why it matters
Before you start an equivalence program, spend five minutes ranking how related your stimuli are. Use photos, not icons. Then train the strongest pairs first. You will see fewer errors and faster mastery, especially with clients who fatigue quickly.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap your weakest icon pair for a high-rated photo pair in your next matching trial.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pairs of pictures were classified by the authors and others as related by identity (A-A), basic taxonomy (A-B), superordinate taxonomy (A-C), or by theme (A-D). Two-choice matching-to-sample trial types were composed of these same picture pairs in which the sample was common to the two stimulus pairs in each configuration and, together with the sample, each comparison exemplified one of the relations in the picture pair; that is: A(AB), A(AC), A(AD), A(BC), A(BD), and A(CD). In five experiments, for each picture pair, college students classified the relation (as taxonomic or thematic) and rated its strength (Exps 1, 3) or its similarity (Exp 4); others matched to sample the foregoing trial types only (Exps 2, 5), or they classified and rated, too (Exp 3). With exceptions, students classed most pairs as the authors did. They also collectively ordered relational strengths from (1) identity, (2) basic taxonomy, and (3) theme, to (4) superordinate taxonomy based, in part, on the similarity of sample and comparison. Subjects chose the comparisons of the more strongly related picture pairs in the matching-to-sample task on 90 percent or more of the configurations. Subjects' selections in two-choice, matching-to-sample configurations using natural stimuli may be based on existing stimulus control topographies such as those exhibited by ratings of the relations in a configuration.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2003 · doi:10.1007/BF03392982