Abstract
Teaching the first instances of arbitrary matching to sample to nonhumans can prove difficult and time consuming. Stimulus control relations may develop that differ from those intended by the experimenter - even when stimulus control shaping procedures are used. This paper reports efforts to identify sources of shaping program failure with a capuchin monkey. Procedures began with a baseline of identity matching. During subsequent shaping trials, compound comparison stimuli had two components - one identical to and another different from the sample. The identical component was eliminated gradually by removing portions across trials (i.e., subtracting stimulus elements). The monkey performed accurately throughout shaping. At a late stage in the program, probe tests were conducted: (1) arbitrary matching trials that had all elements of the identical comparison removed and (2) other trials that included residual elements. During the test, the monkey performed at low levels on the former trials and higher levels on the latter. These results suggested that higher accuracy was due merely to continued control by the residual elements: the target arbitrary matching relations had not been learned. Thus, it appears that procedures that gradually transform identity matching baselines into arbitrary matching can fail by inadvertently shaping restricted control by residual elements. Subsequent probes at the end of the shaping series showed a successful transfer of stimulus control from identity to arbitrary matching after further programming steps apparently overcame the restricted stimulus control.
Highlights
Stimulus control shaping procedures may be useful for establishing simple and conditional discrimination performances when mere differential reinforcement procedures prove ineffective or inefficient (e.g., Sidman & Stoddard, 1967; Schilmoeller, Schilmoeller, Etzel, & LeBlanc, 1979; Touchette & Howard, 1984)
One such procedure presented by Zygmont, Lazar, Dube, and McIlvane (1992) has been an alternative for teaching humans with developmental limitations who show protracted failures to learn arbitrary matching-tosample (ArbMTS) performances via simple differential reinforcement
Termed sample stimulus control shaping, their procedure began with a well-established identity matching-to-sample (IDMTS) baseline
Summary
Stimulus control shaping procedures (cf. McIlvane & Dube, 1992) may be useful for establishing simple and conditional discrimination performances when mere differential reinforcement (trial-and-error) procedures prove ineffective or inefficient (e.g., Sidman & Stoddard, 1967; Schilmoeller, Schilmoeller, Etzel, & LeBlanc, 1979; Touchette & Howard, 1984). Such procedures begin by establishing a baseline with relations that are already within the organism’s repertoire or can be acquired . At the end of shaping, samples and corresponding comparisons did not resemble each other; an ArbMTS baseline was established
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
