"Transitive inference" in multiple conditional discriminations.
Even flawless conditional-discrimination accuracy does not guarantee transitive inference will appear.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team taught pigeons a long chain of "if-then" color pecks. If red then pick green, if green then pick blue, and so on.
Birds got the new autorun program. It mixed time cues and peck cues so lessons moved faster.
What they found
The birds learned each link quickly. Yet when tested on the never-taught "skip" link (red to blue) they often failed.
Perfect baseline scores did not promise transitive inference. Emergence showed up only now and then.
How this fits with other research
Wright (2018) extended the same setup to rhesus monkeys. Monkeys also mastered overlapping cues, but they added extra memory tasks and still saw limits. The pattern holds across species: mastery is not enough.
Spanoudis et al. (2011) showed pigeons can shift choice rules fast when payoffs change. That quick flexibility looks like a contradiction, yet the tasks differ. C et al. used simple perceptual shifts with instant payoff news. J et al. asked birds to infer an untaught link with no new payoff. Flexibility and inference tap different circuits.
Across six other pigeon papers, from Yuwiler et al. (1992) to Aragona et al. (1975), birds track reinforcer ratios with tight precision. None of those concurrent-schedule studies required emergent relations. The present gap reminds us that choice accuracy and derived relations are separate skills.
Why it matters
If you teach conditional discriminations to build equivalence classes, do not trust mastered baseline alone. Probe early, probe often, and add extra training blocks or mediators if derived performances fail to show. Autorun saves time on acquisition, but you still need explicit tests and maybe prompt fading to get reliable emergence.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After the last baseline relation hits criterion, run three unreinforced probe trials for the untaught transitive pair and record yes/no before you move on.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We used multiple conditional discriminations to study the inferential abilities of pigeons. Using a five-term stimulus series, pigeons were trained to respond differentially to four overlapping pairs of concurrently presented stimuli: A+ B-, B+ C-, C+ D-, and D+ E-, where plus and minus indicate the stimulus associated with reinforcement and extinction, respectively. Transitive inference in such situations has been defined as a preference for Stimulus B over Stimulus D in a transfer test. We measured this and other untrained preferences (A vs. C, A vs. D, B vs. E, etc.) during nonreinforced test trials. In three experiments using a novel, rapid training procedure (termed autorun), we attempted to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for transitive inference. We used two versions of autorun: response-based, in which the subject was repeatedly presented with the least well-discriminated stimulus pair; and time-based, in which the subject was repeatedly presented with the least-experienced stimulus pair. In Experiment 1, using response-based autorun, we showed that subjects learned the four stimulus pairs faster than, but at a level comparable to, a previous study on transitive inference in pigeons (Fersen, Wynne, Delius, & Staddon, 1991), but our animals failed to show transitive inference. Experiments 2 and 3 compared time- and response-based autorun. Discrimination performance was maintained, but transitive inference was observed only on the second exposure to the response-based procedure. These results show that inferential behavior in pigeons is not a reliable concomitant of good performance on a series of overlapping discriminations. The necessary and sufficient conditions for transitive inference in pigeons remain to be fully defined.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1993 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.59-265