4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Equivalence classification by California sea lions using class-specific reinforcers

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR
Volume 76, Issue 2, Pages 131-158

Publisher

SOC EXP ANALYSIS BEHAVIOR INC
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-131

Keywords

stimulus equivalence; functional classes; reversal procedure; simple discrimination; conditional discrimination; differential outcome; California sea lions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ability to group dissimilar stimuli into categories on die basis of common stimulus relations (stimulus equivalence) or common functional relations (functional equivalence) has been convincingly demonstrated in verbally competent subjects. However, there are investigations with verbally limited humans and with nonhuman animals that suggest that the formation and use of classification schemes based on equivalence does not depend on linguistic skills. The present investigation documented the ability of two California sea lions to classify stimuli into functional classes using a simple discrimination reversal procedure. Following the formation of functional classes in this context, the second experiment showed transfer of the relations that emerged between class members to a matching-into-sample procedure. The third experiment demonstrated that the functional classes could be expanded through traditionally defined equivalence relations. In these three experiments, appropriate within-class responding produced class-specific food reinforcers. Experiment 3 addressed the role of these reinforcers in equivalence classification and showed that the class-specific reinforcers were sufficient to relate new stimuli to the functional classes. These findings show that sea lions can form equivalence classes in simple and conditional discrimination procedures, and that class-specific reinforcers can become equivalence class members.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available