Printer Friendly

Emergence of complex intraverbals determined by simpler intraverbals.

Intraverbals are verbal operants characterized by the emission of a verbal response after the presentation of a verbal stimulus that shows no point-to-point correspondence with the response (Skinner 1957). Intraverbals are ubiquitous in everyday life, especially in the context of social interactions such as conversations, songs, stories, plays, etc., and in most academic skills (e.g., saying the alphabet, counting or answering utterances like, "What is your name," "Name the opposite of dark"). In addition, more sophisticated verbal skills, like answering questions about what one did on the weekend, or telling what utensils are used for making soup, also involve intraverbals. Intraverbals can be taught via transfer-of-stimulus-control procedures in which echoic, tact, or textual prompts are presented (e.g., Axe 2008; Braam and Poling 1983; Finkel and Williams 2001; Ingvarsson et al. 2007, 2012; Ingvarsson and Hollobaugh 2010; Luciano 1986; Miguel et al. 2005; Partington and Bailey 1993; Sundberg et al. 1990; Sundberg and Sundberg 1990; Vedora et al. 2009; Vignes 2007; Watkins et al. 1989--see reviews by Axe 2008 and Cihon 2007) or brought about with other teaching strategies (e.g., Greer et al. 2005; Kisamore et al. 2011; Sautter et al. 2011). Moreover, the functional independence of intraverbals and other verbal operants such as tacts have been demonstrated (Goldsmith et al. 2007; Kelley et at. 2007; Lerman et al. 2005; Miguel et al. 2005); these studies were conducted after the seminal paper by Lamarre and Holland (1985) in which these authors demonstrated the functional independence of mands and tacts.

The emergence of novel intraverbals by transfer of stimulus control from stimuli of non-intraverbal operants (i.e., echoics, tacts, etc.) has been widely demonstrated in studies that have often been analyzed in terms of categorization skills (e.g., Braam and Poling 1983; Chase et al. 1985; Luciano 1986; Partington and Bailey 1993; Perez-Gonzalez and Belloso-Diaz 2005; Perez-Gonzalez et al. 2006; Petursdottir et al. 2008a; Sundberg and Sundberg 1990; and Watkins et at. 1989). The teaching of tact and listener repertories has also led to the emergence of novel intraverbals (Perez-Gonzalez and Belloso-Diaz 2005; Perez-Gonzalez et al. 2006; Petursdottir et al. 2008a, b; Petursdottir and Haflidadottir 2009). Transfer among intraverbals has been also demonstrated (e.g., Perez-Gonzalez et al. 2007, 2013; Petursdottir et al. 2008a, b; Polson and Parsons 2000). Most of these studies demonstrated that the procedure of teaching and probing verbal operants with several exemplars results in the eventual emergence, without explicit teaching, of other untaught operants (e.g., Perez-Gonzalez et al. 2007).

Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) used a variation of the stimulus equivalence paradigm with intraverbals. The main purpose of their study was teaching and probing intraverbals with the ABC structure, typical of the stimulus equivalence paradigm, in which three stimulus sets are related and novel relations are probed; they used the linear series teaching structure (e.g., Saunders and Green 1999). Thus, they taught A-B and B-C and probed B-A (as in symmetry), C-B (as in symmetry), A-C (as in transitivity), and C-A (as in an equivalence probe). For teaching the A-B relations, they used intraverbals such as, "Name a city of Argentina"--"Buenos Aires" (were A1 is "Argentina" and B1 is "Buenos Aires") and for teaching the BC relations they used intraverbals such as, "Name a park of Buenos Aires"--"El Botanico" (where B1 is "Buenos Aires" and Cl is "El Botanico"). It is important to notice that an additional stimulus (besides one stimulus A and one stimulus B, for example) seems necessary in order to get the answer of the category required. If not, a stimulus would always evocate the same response; for example, the stimulus "Argentina" would always evocate "Buenos Aires" as response; thus, if "Argentina"- "Buenos Aires" is taught, then there is no way to probe other relations other than A-B, with A as the antecedent stimulus. By adding to the intraverbal the stimulus related to the category of the A stimulus, for example, teaching and probing additional relations is possible. Thus, for example, the researchers included "city" in A-B to prompt a response of the category of B (the stimulus was, "Name a city of Argentina"), and they included "park" in the A-C probe to prompt a response of the category of C (the stimulus was, "Name a park of Argentina"). The intrinsic complexity of these intraverbals could result in human performance quite different from that of the typical studies on stimulus equivalence with selection-based topographies. Such an outcome was found in the first experiment: most participants, five- and six-year-old children, did not show some of the probed intraverbals; i.e., symmetry B-A ("Name the country of Buenos Aires") and equivalence C-A ("Name the country of El Botanico") did not emerge in four of the five participants.

A second experiment by Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) studied the effect of learning simpler intraverbals on the emergence of the targeted intraverbals B-A, C-B, A-C, and C-A. Specifically, they taught simple intraverbals of the type, "Name a city"--"Buenos Aires," which were denominated "Exemplar intraverbals," and, "What is Buenos Aires"--"A city," which were denominated "Category intraverbals," before probing B-A, C-B, A-C, and C-A. Notice that the simple intraverbals had a single stimulus (e.g., "city") instead of two ("city of Argentina"), on one hand, and that the stimuli of the simple intraverbals are the same as in the ABC intraverbals. The experiment's results demonstrated that teaching the simple intraverbals facilitated the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. In other terms, Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) data are congruent with the hypothesis that Exemplars and Categories facilitate the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. Carp and Petursdottir (2012) replicated Perez-Gonzalez et al's results with 6-year and 7-year-old children in that teaching Exemplars and Categories is necessary for most children for the probed ABC intraverbals to emerge. They also found that the order in which the Exemplars and Categories are taught does not affect the emergence.

In a related experiment, Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2013) analyzed whether Exemplars emerge after learning Categories and vice versa in six-year-old children. Some children that learned the Exemplars showed the emergence of the Categories. Other children did so after additional teaching. The children that learned the Categories, however, did not show the emergence of the Exemplars. Even after additional teaching, only one out of ten children showed the emergence of the Exemplars. Perez-Gonzalez et al.'s results suggest that the Exemplars are enough to form the stimulus classes Corresponding to the Exemplar-Category partition, but Categories are not.

The ABC intraverbals used by Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) and Carp and Petursdottir (2012) are intraverbals in which responding is conditional to the presence of two discriminative stimuli simultaneously. They are conditional discriminations (i.e., in the intraverbal, "Name a city of Argentina" - "Buenos Aires," when responding depends on the stimuli "city" and "Argentina" -notice that across intraverbals, these stimuli "city" and "Argentina" change, e.g., to "park" and "Uruguay"). Categories and Exemplars, on the other side, are intraverbals in which responding is conditional to the presence of only one discriminative stimulus; they are simple discriminations (i.e., in the intraverbal, "Name a city" - "Buenos Aires," responding depends on the stimulus "city" -notice that "Name a ..." is the same in all Exemplars and, therefore, does not affect responding within this context) (see a detailed analysis by Axe 2008). ABC intraverbals, Categories, and Exemplars are related to one another because they share stimuli. Categories and Exemplars are very likely easier to learn because they are simple discriminations. Moreover, Categories and/or Exemplars could facilitate the learning and emergence of ABC intraverbals. The present research deals with the relations among these two types of intraverbals and how the emergence of complex intraverbals (namely, the ABC intraverbals, which are conditional discriminations) are facilitated by previous learning of simpler intraverbals with the same stimuli (namely, Categories and Exemplars, which are simple discriminations),

Perez-Gonzalez et al.'s (2008) study was conducted with children. It is unknown whether adults require Exemplars and Categories to demonstrate the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals, as most children require. Moreover, this study did not answer the question of whether Exemplars, Categories, or both, facilitates the emergence of the target intraverbals, because both Exemplars and Categories were taught together instead of exploring the effect ofjust introducing one. Carp and Petursdottir (2012) introduced one (either Exemplars or Categories), and after just one probe of the ABC intraverbals they introduced the other one; hence, it is unknown what would have happened had the probes being repeated before introducing the other intraverbal. A primary interest for answering this question consists of knowing with more precision the type of intraverbals that an individual needs to acquire for the probed ABC intraverbals to emerge. Exemplars share with the ABC intraverbals the elements that function as stimuli and responses (e.g, "Name a park" and, "Name a park of Buenos Aires") whereas Categories do not (e.g., the stimulus is, "What is El Botanico"); therefore, it may be that Exemplars may be enough for facilitating the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. For similar reasons, it may be that Categories do not facilitate the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. Moreover, because Categories easily emerge from Exemplars, but not the opposite, it is of theoretical and practical interest finding out the role that each intraverbal type plays in the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. It may be that, because Exemplars facilitate the emergence of their corresponding Categories, learning Exemplars can facilitate further emergence as if the learner had acquired both Exemplars and Categories. If Categories are learned instead, because Categories do not easily bring about the emergence of the Exemplars, learning Categories alone could not be enough, or could not have a strong influence, for the subsequent emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. The present study was designed to answer these questions. The first goal of the present research was to find out whether adults show the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals after learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals, without being taught Categories or Exemplars. The second goal of the present research was to find out whether adults who did not show the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals would show it after learning either Categories or Exemplars, but not both. For that purpose, three studies were conducted. In Experiment 1 we explored the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals without teaching Categories or Exemplars. In Experiment 2, we explored the effect of teaching the Categories on the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. In Experiment 3, we explored the effect of teaching the Exemplars on that emergence.

General Procedure

Participants

Eleven Spanish-speaking adults (six females and five males) participated. Two participants were liberal arts students and the rest of them had different professions, from plumber to lawyer. Three other participants of similar characteristics were discarded because they responded correctly to more than one question in the pretest phase of the experiment (see below).

Stimuli and Definition of Correct Responses

All of the study was conducted in Spanish. We designed four intraverbals in Spanish for teaching (1) (see an overview of the relations in Fig. 1; see, "Taught A-B Chemical group-Chemical element" and, "Taught B-C Chemical element-Atomic Number" in Table I). For example, in the A-B intraverbal, the antecedent stimuli were, "Name the boron [-group] element" and the correct response was "indium"; in the B-C intraverbal, the antecedent stimuli were "Name the atomic number of the indium" and the correct response was "49." The other two A-B and B-C intraverbals were analogous, referred to the chalcogen group, polonium, and the atomic number 84. For clarity purposes, we denominated the four A-B and B-C intraverbals as the taught intraverbals.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

We also designed another eight intraverbals, which resulted from combining some of the stimuli of the four intraverbals taught (the resulting intraverbals are the probed intraverbals indicated in Table 1). This resulted in the B-A Chemical element-Chemical group, the C-B Atomic number-Chemical element, the A-C Chemical group-Atomic number, and the CA Atomic number-Chemical group intraverbals. For example, in the B-A Chemical element-Chemical group probe, the antecedent stimuli were "Name the chemical group of the indium" and the correct response was "boron [-group] ." We denominated these eight intraverbals as the probed intraverbals or the novel intraverbals.
Table 1 Stimuli and response components of the intraverbals
taught and probed. The notation within brackets was not spoken.
The English translation appears in italics below each intraverbal type

Antecedent stimuli                         Correct response
Taught A-B Chemical group-Chemical element
Dime el elemento        [A1] terreo            [B1] (Indio)
Dime el elemento        [A2] anfigeno          [B2] (Polonio)
Name the chemical       [A1] boron[-group]     [B1] (Indium)
element of the
Name the chemical       [A2] chalcogen         [B2] (Polonium)
element of the
Taught B-C Chemical element-Atomic number
Dime el numero atomico  [B1] Indio             [C1] (El 49)
del
Dime el numero atomico  [B2] Polonio           [C2] (El 84)
del
Name the atomic number  [B1] indium            [C1] (49)
of the
Name the atomic number  [B2] polonium          [C2] (84)
of the
Probed B-A Chemical element- Chemical group
Dime el grupo quimico   [B1] Indio             [A1] (Terreo)
del
Dime el grupo quimico   [B2] Polonio           [A2] (Anfigeno)
del
Name the chemical       [B1] indium            [A1] (Boron[-group])
group of
Name the chemical       [B2] Polonium          [A2] (Chalcogen)
group of
Probed C-B Atomic number-Chemical element
Dime el elemento         C1] 49                [B1] (Indio)
quimieo del
Dime el elemento         [C2] 84               [B2] (Polonio)
quimico del
Name the chemical        [C1] the 49           [B1] (Indium)
element of
Name the chemical        [C2J the 84           [B2] (Polonium)
element of
Probed A-C Chemical group-Atomic number
Dime el numero atomico   [A1] terreo           [C1] (El 49)
del
Dime el numero atomico   [A2] anfigeno         [C2](El 84)
del
Name the atomic number   [A1] Boron[-group]    [C1] (49)
of
Name the atomic number   [A2] chalcogen        [C2] (84)
of
Probed C-A Atomic number- Chemical group
Dime el grupo quimico     [C1] el 49           [A1] (Terreo)
de
Dime el grupo quimico     [C2] el 84           [A2] (Anfigeno)
de
Name the chemical         [C1]  the 49         [A1] (Boron[-group])
group of
Name the chemical         [C2]  the 84         [A2] (Chalcogen)
group of


Taking together the four taught and the eight probed intraverbals, we formed all the intraverbals that result from combining the six stimuli (boron [-group] , chalcogen, indium, polonium, 49, and 84) as stimuli and responses. We denominated these intraverbals as the ABC intraverbals. In addition to the ABC intraverbals, we designed two other types of intraverbals, which were denominated Categories and Exemplars.

Categories The Categories were six intraverbals in which the antecedent stimuli was the expression, "What is the..." followed by one of the following terms: "boron [-group] ", "indium", "49", "chalcogen", "polonium", or "84". The responses to such utterances defined as correct were, "A chemical group," "A chemical Element," or "An atomic number" (see top of Table 2 for details). For example, when asked, "What is chalcogen?" the correct response was "A chemical group" These intraverbals were labeled as Categories because their correct response consisted of saying the name of a category.
Table 2 Stimuli and response components of the Categories
and the Exemplars. The English translation appears in
italics below each intraverbal type

Antecedent stimuli           Correct response

Categories
?Que es terreo?              (Un grupo quimico)
?Que es anfigeno?            (Un grupo quimico)
?Que es Polonio?             (Un elemento)
?Que es Indio?               (Un elemento)
?Que es 49?                  (Un numero atomico)
?Que es 84?                  (Un numero atomico)
What is the boron[-group]?   (A chemical group)
chemical group)
What is the chalcogen?       (A chemical group)
What is polonium?            (A chemical element)
What is indium?              (A chemical element)
What is 49?                  (An atomic number)
What is 84?                  (An atomic number)
Exemplars
Dime un grupo quimico        (Terreo)
Dime un grupo quimico        (Anfigeno)
Dime un elemento quimico     (Polonio)
Dime un elemento quimico     (Indio)
Dime un niimero atomico      (El 49)
Dime un nomero atomico       (El 84)
Name a chemical group        (The boron[-group])
Name a chemical group        (Chalcogen)
Name a chemical element      (Indium)
Name a chemical element      (Polonium)
Name an atomic number        (49)
Name an atomic number        (84)


Exemplars The Exemplars were six intraverbals in which the antecedent stimuli were the terms of the expression, "Name a/an..." followed by one of the following terms: "chemical group", "chemical element", or "atomic number." The responses to such utterances defined as correct were the two exemplars of these categories used in the A-B and B-C operants (see bottom of Table 2). More specifically, when asked, for example, "Name a chemical group" both "boron [-group] " and "chalcogen" were correct responses. On the subsequent trial, however, the question asked was slightly modified (i.e., "Name another chemical group") and in this case only the response not given in the previous trial was considered correct (e.g., if a participant answered "boron [-group] " in the first trial, the correct response in the subsequent trial was "chalcogen"). These intraverbals were labeled as Exemplars because their correct answer consisted of saying the exemplar of a category.

Setting, Instructions, Stimulus Presentation,

and Consequences

The research was conducted in a quiet room located in the School of Psychology of the University of Oviedo or in the house of one of the authors. In both cases, the rooms were equipped with (at least) one table and several chairs, were comfortable and silent, and it was guaranteed that nobody could interrupt the session.

During the experimental sessions, the experimenter--either of the authors sat in front of the participant. At the start of the first session, the experimenter told the participant: "I am going to ask you some questions. Sometimes I will let you know whether your answers are correct, but other times I will not tell you anything. Try to do the best you can do, because I will record all your answers." Later on, the experimenter read each question aloud to the participant, waited for 5 s for his/her response, presented the appropriate consequences, wrote down the response and moved on to the next trial.

For each trial, only the first word said by the participant after the question read to him/her by the experimenter was considered as his/her response for that trial. If the participant said the first syllable of an incorrect answer, then the response was considered incorrect. The absence of any answer to the question presented by the experimenter within 5 s was also considered as an incorrect response. During the teaching phases, correct responses were followed by expressions such as "Very good" , "Excellent" , or "Well done" ; while incorrect responses, were followed by "No, [the correct response]" or just by the correct response (for example -"Name a chemical element of the Boron [-group]"--"84" was followed by "No, indium" or "Indium"). The expressions for correct responses proved to function as reinforcers in the context of this research; also, the consequences for incorrect responses decreased incorrect responding. During the probes, no consequences were provided. Sessions lasted the time that was necessary to complete a probe-teaching-probe cycle--about 20 minutes.

Initial Probes

Probes of the ABC intraverbals In the pretest, the probe of the ABC intraverbals consisted of presenting the antecedent stimuli of the 12 intraverbals of Table 1 in random order. Thereafter, when the probe was presented to evaluate the effect of teaching the A-B and B-C intraverbals on the emergence of the rest of the ABC intraverbals, it consisted of presenting the 12 intraverbals of Table 1 twice, also in random order.

Probe of the Categories This probe consisted of presenting the antecedent stimuli of the six intraverbals shown on top of Probe of the Exemplars This probe consisted of presenting the antecedent stimuli of the six intraverbals shown on bottom of Table 2, in random order. Each intraverbal was presented twice, making up a12-trial probe.

Teaching the A-B and B-C Intraverbals Teaching A-B Chemical group-Chemical element We taught the A-B intravethals in 3 phases. In Phase 1, the question was, "Name the chemical clement of the boron [-group]" [Al]. The experimenter provided the correct response (indium [BI]) in the first two trials (a prompt). After three consecutive correct responses with no prompts, the experimenter moved to Phase 2. Phase 2 was identical to Phase 1, but the question was, "Name the chemical element of a chalcogen" [A2] and the correct response was polonium [B2]. In Phase 3, the two questions of Phases 1 and 2 were intermixed randomly, with the restriction that two trials of each question appeared every four trials. The experimenter did not provide prompts in any trial. After 12 correct consecutive responses, the experimenter moved to the next phase.

Teaching B-C Chemical element-Atomic number We taught the B-C intraverbals in 3 phases, exactly as the A-B intraverbals. The questions were, "Name the atomic number of indium" [B1] ("49" [C1] was the correct response), and, "Name the atomic number of polonium" [B2] ("84" [C2] was the correct response).

Teaching A-B Chemical group-Chemical element and B-C Chemical element-Atomic number mixed Finally, the experimenter presented the four Chemical group-Chemical element and Chemical element-Atomic number questions randomly intermixed, with the restriction that the four questions appeared every four trials. This phase ended after 12 consecutive correct responses. From the second cycle of teaching and probing onwards, the teaching of the A-B and B-C intraverbals consisted only of this phase.

Teaching Categories and Exemplars

Teaching Categories We taught the Categories in 11 phases. In Phase 1, the antecedent stimuli were, "What is a boron[-group]?", and the correct response was, "A chemical group."The experimenter provided the correct response in the first two trials. After three consecutive correct responses with no prompts, the experimenter moved on to Phase 2. Phase 2 was identical to Phase 1, but the antecedent stimuli were, "What is polonium" and the correct response was, "A chemical element."In Phase 3, the two questions of Phases 1 and 2 were intermixed randomly, with the restriction that two questions of each type appeared every four trials. The experimenter did not provide prompts in any trial. After 12 correct consecutive responses, the experimenter moved on to the next phase. Phases 4, 5, and 6 were identical to Phases 1 to 3, except for that the stimuli presented were, "What is 49?" (The correct response was, "An atomic number") and, "What is a chalco-gen (the correct response was "A group"). Phases 7, 8, and 9 were identical to Phases 1 to 3, except for that the stimuli were, "What is indium'?" (The correct response was "A chemical element") and, "What is 84?" (The correct response was, "An atomic number"). In Phase 10, the four operants taught in Phases 1 to 6 were intermixed randomly, with the restriction that all the four questions appeared every four trials. After 12 correct consecutive responses, the next phase began. In Phase 11, the six intraverbals taught in Phases 1 to 9 were intermixed, with the restriction that all of them appeared every six trials. When the participant made 12 correct consecutive responses in this phase, the teaching of the Categories ended.

Teaching Exemplars Because in the Exemplars each question had two correct responses, we presented the same request for two consecutive trials. On the first trial, the correct response was either one of the previously defined correct answers (see Table 2). On the second trial, the correct response was the correct answer not produced in the first trial. For example, on the first trial, we asked, "Name a chemical group."If the participant responded "boron[-group]" or "chalcogen", the response was correct. Let us suppose that the participant responded "boron[-group]", then that response was correct. Thereafter, we asked, "Name another chemical group."Now, the correct response was "chalcogen"; then, on this trial, answering "Boron[-group]", was not correct. We taught the Exemplars in 5 phases: In Phase 1, the question was, "Name a chemical group."In the first four trials, the experimenter prompted the correct answer. Starting in the 5th trial, the experimenter did not provide prompts, but he/she continued providing differential consequences. When the participant made four consecutive correct responses, we moved on to Phase 2. Phase 2 was identical to Phase 1, except that the stimuli were, "Name a chemical element.- In Phase 3, pairs of trials with the stimuli of Phases 1 and 2 were intermixed. After 12 consecutive correct responses, we moved on to the next phase. Phase 4 was identical to Phases 1 and 2, but the stimuli were, "Name an atomic number. "Phase 5 was like the previous phases, but pairs of trials with the three stimuli of Phases 1, 2, and 4 were intermixed, with the restriction that the six pairs of questions appeared every twelve trials. When the participant made 12 consecutive correct responses in this phase, the teaching of the Exemplars ended.

Data Recording and Interobserver Agreement One observer was present in some sessions to take data independently for computing the interobserver agreement. In the study, 886 trials, of a total of 2,813, were observed (31.5 %). The experimenter and the observer agreed on 880 trials; thus inter-observer agreement (agreements / [agree-ments+disagreements] x 100) was 99.32 %.

Experiment 1

The goal of this experiment was to explore whether adults learning of the A-B and B-C intraverbals would result in the emergence of the B-A, C-B, A-C, and C-A intraverbals.

Method

Participants Nine adults were presented with the initial probe. Three of them showed more than one correct response and, therefore, were discarded. The remaining six adults continued with the experiment: Manuel, Belen, Benigno, Ana, Edgar, and Alexis. For clarity, we will only describe the results of these six participants.

Procedure Participants received the probes of the ABC intraverbals, the Categories, and the Exemplars (see Table 3). The six participants who did not pass the initial probes (because they responded correctly in one trial or less) were then taught the A-B and B-C intraverbals. Later on, they received the probe of the ABC intraverbals twice. We repeated this cycle of teaching and probing to explore whether the mere repetition of the cycle would lead to the emergence of the eight probed ABC intraverbals. As explained above, from the second repetition of the cycle onwards, the participants received an abbreviated version of the A-B and B-C teaching. When a participant reached 12 correct responses in two consecutive ABC probes or after six teaching-probing cycles (12 probes) his/her participation in the experiment was discontinued.
Table 3 Sequence followed by the participants of each
condition in the first cycle and in the subsequent
cycles. When two or three states appear in a cell,
it indicates that some participants received the one
indicated first, and other participants received the
ones indicated second and third

            Experimen           Experiment              Experiment
               1                    2                       3

            A-B & B-C  alone       Categories              Exemplars

Operants    First      Subsequent  First       Subsequent  First
probed or
taught

            Cycle      Cycles      Cycle       Cycles      Cycle

A-B, B-C,   Probe      No          Probe       No          Probe
B-A, C-B,
A-C, & C-A

Categories  Probe      No          Probe       No          Probe

Exemplars   Probe      No          Probe       No          Probe

Categories  No         No          No, teach*  No, teach,  No
                                               or review

Exemplars   No         No          No          No          No, teach

A-B and     Teach      Review      Teach       Review      Teach
B-C

A-B, B-C,   Probe      Probe       Probe       Probe       Probe
B-A, C-B,
A-C, & C-A

Operants    Subsequent
probed or
taught

            Cycles

A-B, B-C,   No
B-A, C-B,
A-C, & C-A

Categories  No

Exemplars   No

Categories  No

Exemplars   No, teach,
            or review

A-B and     Review
B-C

A-B, B-C,   Probe
B-A, C-B,
A-C, & C-A

 * The procedure depended on whether the participant was
experimentally naive or had participated in the previous
experiment and on the condition in the multiple-baseline
design


Results

Figure 2 shows the results of the participants in the probes of the ABC intraverbals. Detailed results appear in Tables 4, 5,6, 7, 8 and 9. Four out of six participants showed the emergence of the ABC intraverbals. Manuel, Bela, Benign, and Ana reached the emergence criterion in eight to eleven probes. Edgar and Alexis demonstrated the emergence of the B-A, C-B, and A-C intravcrbals, but they did not demonstrate the emergence of the C-A intraverbals after 12 probes. The C-B and A-C intraverbals were the first to emerge in all participants. The B-A intraverbals emerged afterwards in four participants and in the fourth place in two others. The C-A intraverbals emerged in the latter place for two participants, in third place for two others, and did not emerge in the remaining two participants.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Table 4 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Sessions 2-5) arid order of emergence of
each intraverbal shown by Manuel in Study 1

Intraverbal  PRE      After
                      Learning AB+BC

             Session  Session         Session  Session  Session
                1        2               3        4        5

AB              0        3               4        4        4

BC              0        3               4        4        4

BA              0        0               1        3        4

CB              0        4               4        3        4

AC              0        3               4        4        4

CA              0        1               2        4        4

Intraverbal  Order of
             Emergence

AB              -

BC              -

BA            4th

CB            1st

AC            2nd

CA            3rd

Table 5 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Sessions 2-6) and order of emergence
of each intraverbal shown Belen in Study 1

Intraverbal    PRE      After      AB+BC
                        learning

             Session  Session   Session  Session  Session
                   1         2        3        4        5

AB                 0         3        3        1        4

BC                 0         4        4        4        4

BA                 0         0        0        0        4

CB                 0         1        4        3        4

AC                 0         2        3        2        3

CA                 0         0        0        0        4

Intraverbal             Order of
                        Emergence

             Session
                6

AB                 4          -

BC                 4          -

BA                 4        2nd

CB                 4        1st

AC                 4        3rd

CA                 4        2nd

Table 6 Correct responses out of two trials (in Sessions 1
and 7) or four trials (in Sessions 2-6) and order of
emergence ot'each intraverbal shown by I3enigno in Study 1

Intraverbal    PRE      After
                          learning
                          AB + BC

              Session  Session   Session  Session  Session
                  1         2          3        4        5

    AB            0         3          2        2        4

    BC            0         4          4        4        3

    BA            0         0          1        3        4

    CB            0         3          4        4        4

    AC            0         3          2        2        4

    CA            0         0          0        0

                  4         2         3rd

Intraverbal                        Order of
                                   Emergence

              Session  Session
                 6        7

    AB           4        2

    BC           4        2         -

    BA           2        2        2nd

    CB           4        2        1st

    AC           4        2        2nd

    CA

Table 7 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Sessions 2-6) and order of emergence of
each intraverbal shown by Ana in Study 1

Intraverbal    PRE      After
                        learning
                        AB + BC

             Session  Session   Session  Session  Session
                1         2        3        4        5

AB              0         2        4        4        4

BC              0         4        4        4        4

BA              0         2        2        3        4

CB              0         2        4        2        4

AC              0         4        4        4        4

CA              0         1        0        2        4

Intraverbal             Order of
                        Emergence

             Session
                6

AB              4          -

BC              4          -

BA              4        3rd

CB              4        2nd

AC              4        1st

CA              4        3rd

Table 8 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Sessions 2-7) and order of emergence of
each intraverbal shown by Edgar in Study 1

Intraverbal    PRE      After
                        learning

AB + BC

             Session  Session   Session  Session  Session
                   1         2        3        4        5

AB                 0         4        4        3        4

BC                 0         4        4        4        3

BA                 0         0        0        1        4

CB                 0         4        4        3        4

AC                 0         2        4        4        4

CA                 0         0        0        0        0

Intraverbal

AB + BC      Order of
             Emergence

             Session 6  Session
                              7

AB                   4        4    -

BC                   3        3    -

BA                   4        4  3rd

CB                   4        4  1st

AC                   4        4  2nd

CA                   0        0    -

Table 9 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Sessions 2-7) and order of emergence of
each intraverbal shown by Alexis in Study 1

Intraverbal    PRE     After
                         learn
                          ing
                         AB+BC

             Session  Session  Session  Session  Session
                1        2        3        4        5

AB              0        3        4        4        4

BC              0        4        4        4        4

BA              0        3        3        4        3

CB              0        4        4        4        4

AC              0        2        3        2        4

CA              0        0        0        1        0

Intraverbal                      Order of
                                 Emergence

             Session  Session

                6        7

AB              4        4          -

BC              4        4          -

BA              4        4        2nd

CB              4        4        1st

AC              4        4        3rd

CA              0        0          -


Discussion

The results of Experiment 1 indicate that learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals is sufficient for some adults to show the emergence of the remaining ABC intraverbals. Simultaneously, they indicate that learning A-B and B-C is not sufficient for other adults to show that emergence. These results replicate those from Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) and Carp and Petursdottir (2012) with children in that one child in the first study and three children in the second study showed the emergence of the intraverbals after learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals, but the remaining children did not. They also replicated, with four participants, Perez-Gonzalez et al.'s results in that the C-A intraverbals emerged after the remaining probed intraverbals had emerged--the two other participants showed the emergence of C-A before showing the emergence of B-A. Thus, data indicates that the C-A intraverbals are the most difficult intraverbals to emerge in adults as well as in children, but there are exceptions (see a discussion in Carp and Petursdottir). In all participants of the present study and in Perez-Gonzalez et al.'s (2008) study, however, C-B and A-C emerged before than B-A and C-A.

Experiment 2

Experiment 1 demonstrated that some adults do not show the emergence of all probed ABC intraverbals. It is possible that learning simpler intraverbals with some elements of the ABC intraverbals could facilitate that emergence. Thus, the goal of Experiment 2 was to analyze in adults the effect of learning the Categories together with learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals, on the emergence of the B-A, C-B, A-C, and C-A intraverbals. The specific goals were to find out (a) whether teaching the Categories, and the A-B, and B-C intraverbals suffices to produce the emergence of all the novel intraverbals, and (b) whether teaching the Categories would produce that emergence faster than when they are not taught, as in Experiment 1.

Method

Participants Four adults participated. Two of them were experimentally naive (Margarita and Dulce). The other two participants were the participants from Experiment 1 who did not show the emergence of all probed intraverbals (Edgar and Alexis).

Procedures and design The procedures are outlined in Table 3. The experimentally naive participants received the initial probes, the teaching of the Categories, and the A-B and B-C intraverbals. The two participants that had taken part in Experiment I received one and three additional cycles in which the A-B and B-C intraverbals were reviewed and the remaining ABC intraverbals were probed, in accordance with a multiple-baseline design across participants. Then, the Categories were taught, the A-B and B-C intraverbals were reviewed, and the remaining ABC intraverbals were probed. The fastest participant from Experiment I showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals after eight probes. One of the goals of the present experiment was to find out whether teaching the Categories, together with teaching the A-B and the B-C intraverbals, would result in a faster emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals (as compared with teaching the A-B and B-C intraverbals alone). The cycle of teaching and probing in Experiment 2 was repeated for a maximum of four sessions following the teaching of the Categories, which made up eight probes.

Results

Results of in the probes of the ABC intraverbals appear in Fig. 3. Detailed results appear in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13. Edgar and Alexis who had learned the A-B and B-C intraverbals before learning the Categories, showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals after just three probes following the learning of the Categories. They showed the emergence in the same order: C-B, A-C, B-A, and finally C-A. On the contrary, the two experimentally naive participants, Margarita and Dulce, who learned the Categories before learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals, did not show the emergence of all probed ABC intraverbals; Dulce also made errors in the taught A-B intraverbals presented in the ABC probe. Margarita showed the emergence of most instances of the C-B intraverbals and some of the A-C intraverbals, but she did not show the emergence of the B-A and C-A intraverbals after four teaching-probing cycles. Dulce showed similar results: she only showed the emergence of the C-B intraverbals and some of the A-C intraverbals; she did not show the emergence of the B-A and C-A intraverbals after four teaching-probing cycles.
Table 10 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Sessions 2-5) and order of emergence of
each intraverbal shown by Margarita in Study 2

Intraverbal    PRE      After     VB+BC+Categories
                        learning
                            /

             Session  Session       Session 3     Session
                1        2                          4

AB             0         3              2           0

BC             0         4              4           4

BA             0         0              0           0

CB             0         4              4           2

AC             0         2              1           1

CA             0         0              0           0

Intraverbal             Order of
                        Emergence

             Session
                   5

AB                 3          -

BC                 4          -

BA                 0          -

CB                 4        1st

AC                 2          -

CA                 0          -

Table 11 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Sessions 2-5) and order of emergence of
each intraverbal shownby Dulce in Study 2

Intraverbal    PRE      After     Categories
                        learning
                        AB + BC

             Session  Session   Session 3   Session  Session
                   1         2                    4        5

AB                 0         1           1        1        1

BC                 0         4           4        4        4

BA                 0         0           0        0        0

CB                 0         4           4        4        4

AC                 0         3           3        2        2

CA                 0         0           0        0        0

Intraverbal  Order of
             Emergence

AB                   -

BC                   -

BA                   -

CB                 1st

AC                   -

CA                   -

Table 12 Correct responses out of four trials (in Sessions
8-10) or two trials (in Session 11) and order of emergence
of each intraverbal shown by Edgar in Study 2

Intraverbal     After              After              Order of
                learning           learning           Emergence
                AB + BC            Categories

             Session   Session  Session 10  Session        -

             8         9                    11

AB           4         4        4           2              -

BC           4         3        3           2              -

BA           4         1        4           2            1st

CB           4         4        4           2            1st

AC           4         4        4           2            1st

CA           0         0        2           2              -

Table 13 Correct responses out of four trials (in Session
8-11) or two trials (in Session 12) and order of emergence
of each intraverbal shown by Alexis in Study 2

Intraverbal  After                       After     Categories
             learning                    learning
             AB + BC

             Session   Session  Session  Session   Session 12

                8         9        10       11

AB              4         4        4        4         2

BC              4         4        4        4         ->

BA              4         4        4        4         2

CB              4         4        4        4         2

AC              4         4        4        4         2

CA              1         0        0        3         2

Intraverbal   Order of
             Emergence
             AB + BC

AB

BC

BA            1st

CB            1st

AC            1st

CA            2nd


[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Discussion

The experiment results were mixed and unexpected: The two participants who learned the Categories after been presented with several cycles of A-B and B-C teaching and ABC probing, showed the emergence of the probed intraverbals. The two participants who learned the Categories before learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals, however, did not show the emergence of the probed intraverbals. These results suggest that learning the Categories after the A-B and B-C intraverbals facilitates the emergence of complex intraverbals in adults, whereas learning the Categories before learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals does not. Moreover, Margarita and Dulce showed errors in the maintenance of A-B intraverbals. This fact could preclude the emergence of B-A and C-A intraverbals. It is also possible that teaching the Categories first could have produced the disruption of the learned A-B intraverbals. These suggestions must be considered with caution because the number of participants is too low for drawing a clear conclusion. Further research is needed to clarify the influence of the Categories on the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. If the results of the present experiment were confirmed, it would be interesting to know if the effect of teaching the Categories before teaching the A-B and B-C intraverbals makes it more difficult to show the emergence of novel intraverbals of the ABC type. Finally, it should be noted that the two participants who showed the emergence of all the probed ABC intraverbals--Edgar and Alexis- did so in the same order as the children who participated in Perez-Gonzalez et al.'s (2008) study.

Experiment 3

Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that some adults do not show the emergence of all probed ABC intraverbals, even when the Categories are taught (as in Experiment 2). Thus, it would be of interest, for theoretical and practical reasons, to find out whether additional learning experiences can bring about the emergence of all the probed ABC intraverbals in adults. For that reason, the goal of Experiment 3 was to analyze in adults the effect of learning the Exemplars, prior to learning A-B and B-C intraverbals, on the emergence of the B-A, C-B, A-C, and C-A intraverbals.

Method

Participants Four adults participated. Three participants (Mercedes, Sabela, and Juan) were experimentally naive. The other participant was Dulce, who had participated in Experiment 2, and had not showed the emergence of all the probed ABC intraverbals.

Procedure The procedures varied across participants in order to evaluate as soon as possible the effect of learning the Exemplars (see Table 3). Dulce (who had learned the Categories and the A-B and B-C intraverbals in Experiment 2) learned the Exemplars, reviewed the A-B and B-C intraverbals, and received the probe of the ABC intraverbals. Mercedes and Sabela received the initial probes, learned the Exemplars and the A-B and B-C intraverbals, and received the probes of the ABC intraverbals. Juan received the initial probes first, two cycles in which he learned (or reviewed) the A-B and B-C intraverbals and the probes of the ABC intraverbals; after the two cycles, he learned the Exemplars, reviewed the A-B and B-C intraverbals and received the probes of the ABC intraverbals once again.

Results

Results of the probed intraverbals appear in Fig. 4. Detailed data appear in Tables 14, 15, 16 and 17. All participants showed the emergence of the intraverbals after learning the Exemplars and the A-B and B-C intraverbals. Mercedes, Sabela, and Dulcc showed the emergence of the intraverbals after one, two, and one teaching and probing cycles, respectively. Thus, two participants showed the emergence without errors and the third participant made only one error. Juan received, after the initial probes, two cycles of teaching-reviewing the A-B and B-C intraverbals together with the probes of the ABC intraverbals. He showed the emergence of the C-A intraverbals and some instances of C-B and B-A intraverbals, but he did not show the emergence of the A-C intraverbals after the two cycles. By the next cycle, he learned the Exemplars before the A-B and B-C intraverbals were reviewed. Juan showed the emergence of all intraverbals immediately after learning the Exemplars. With these data, it is evident that the four probed ABC intraverbals emerged immediately in three participants. In the fourth participant, there came first the B-A and C-A intraverbals, but, in the same session, he showed the emergence in 2 out of 4 trials of C-B and 1 out of 4 trials of A-C. In the next session, he did not show the same pattern; in the third session, he showed the emergence of all probed ABC intraverbals immediately.
Table 14 Correct responses out of two trials (in Session 1)
or four trials (in Session 2) and order of emergence of each
intraverbal shownby Mercedes in Study 3

Intraverbal             PRE

Session 1          After learning         Order of Emergence
             AB+BC+Exemplars Session 2

AB                                   0                   4    -

BC                                   0                   4

BA                                   0                   4  1st

CB                                   0                   4  1st

AC                                   0                   4  1st

CA                                   0                   4  1st

Table 15 Correct responses out of two trials (in Sessions
1 and 3) or four trials (in Session 2) and order of
emergence of each intraverbal shown by Sabela in Study 2

Intraverbal     PRE
             Session 1  After learning   Session  Order of
                        AB+BC+Exemplars     3     Emergence
                          Session 2

AB                 0          4             2        -

BC                 0          4             2        -

BA                 0          4             2      1st

CB                 0          4             2      1st

AC                 0          4             2      1st

CA                 0          3             2      2nd

Table 16 Correct responses out of four trials and order
of emergence of each intraverbal shown by Dulce in
Study 3

Intraverbal  After learning Exemplars Session 6  Order of Emergence

AB                               4
BC                               4
BA                               4                      1st
CB                               4                      1st
AC                               4                      1st
CA                               4                      1st

Table 17 Correct responses out of four trials and order of
emergence of each intraverbal shown by Juan in Study 3

Intraverbal    PRE       After             After learning
                        learning AB           Exemplars
                            + BC

             Session   Session 2   Session   Session 4
               1                     3

AB             0            4        4           4

BC             0            4        4           4

BA             0            4        1           4

CB             0            2        4           4

AC             0            1        0           4

CA             0            4        4           4

Intraverbal  Order of
             Emergence

AB

BC

BA              1st

CB               2nd

AC               3rd

CA               1st


Discussion

All participants showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals immediately after learning the Exemplars. This happened with the three participants who learned the Exemplars before learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals as well as with the participant who learned the Exemplars after Learning and reviewing the A-B and B-C intraverbals. Thus, the results suggest that learning the Exemplars facilitates the immediate emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals, and does so regardless of the sequence of teaching and probing. Because the four intraverbals emerged immediately in three of the four participants, all four probed ABC intraverbals emerged at the same time; the four participants did not show a clear pattern, but the fact that all intraverbals emerged so quickly indicates that the order of emergence was not due to the fact that some intraverbals emerge before than others, but to other factors that affect to all intraverbals equally.

General Discussion

Ten out of the eleven participants showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. Participants learned the A-B Chemical group-Chemical element and B-C Chemical element-Atomic number relations. Thereafter, they showed the B-A Chemical element-Chemical group, the C-B Atomic number-Chemical element, the A-C Chemical group-Atomic group, and the C-A Atomic number-Chemical group relations. Thus, the present research replicated and extended to adults the results of Perez-Gonzalez et al.'s (2008) and Carp and Petursdottir (2012) regarding the emergence with selection-based operants of the type of the ABC intraverbals.

The first goal of the present study was to find out whether adults need Exemplars and/or Categories to show the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. That question was answered in Experiment 1: Four adults demonstrated the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals without additional learning of either Categories or Exemplars. These results demonstrate that some adults do not need learning Categories or Exemplars to show the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. On the other hand, two other adults did not show the emergence after repeated teaching and probing. Thus, these results demonstrate that some adults need additional learning to show that emergence. These results are congruent with those obtained with children by Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) and Carp and Petursdottir (2012).

The second goal of the present research was to explore whether learning Categories alone, Exemplars alone, or both, facilitates the emergence of the intraverbals. The possibility that learning Categories alone (i.e., without learning the Exemplars) is sufficient for bringing about the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals was examined in Experiment 2. Two adults showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals after learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals together with the Categories, but another two adults did not. The results with these two participants are very interesting. They did not show that emergence of the ABC intraverbals after seven and nine cycles (14 and 18 probes) involving the learning of the A-B and B-C intraverbals and the probe of all ABC intraverbals; they did show that emergence, however, almost immediately after learning the Categories. The results of these two participants indicate that teaching the Categories may have a great influence on the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals, at least with some participants. It is also interesting that the two participants who demonstrated the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals were the two participants that learned first the A-Band B-C intraverbals and then the Categories, whereas the two participants that did not show the emergence of ABC intraverbals learned first the Categories, and they learned thereafter the A-B and B-C intraverbals. These results suggest that teaching Categories after A-B and B-C intraverbals could make it more difficult for the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. This hypothesis is suggested by the results of only four participants but it is congruent with the results of Carp and Pctursdottir (2012). In their study, the two children who showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals immediately after learning the Categories (in the condition with Exemplars first of his study) had learned the Categories after learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals.

The possibility that learning Exemplars alone is sufficient for the emergence of the ABC intraverbals was examined in Experiment 3. The four participants in this experiment showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals almost without errors. These results indicate that learning the Exemplars, either before or after learning the A-B and B-C intraverbals, greatly facilitates the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. This conclusion appears even clearer if the performance of the six participants that did not learn the Exemplars, in Experiment 1, is compared with the performance of the four participants that learned them in Experiment 3. None of the six participants in Experiment I showed the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals within the first three cycles that consisted of teaching or reviewing the A-B and B-C intraverbals and probing the probed ABC intraverbals. In contrast, all four participants of Experiment 3 showed that emergence immediately. Thus, the facilitating effect of learning the Exemplars appears to be very strong.

Developmental factors could mediate the facilitating effect of learning the Exemplars on the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals. The proportion of adults who showed that emergence without learning the Categories and Exemplars was higher than the proportion of children who did so. That is, four out of six adults showed the emergence of the ABC intraverbals in the present study, whereas only one out of five 6-year-old children showed that emergence in Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) and three out of nine 6- and 7-year-old children showed emergence in Carp and Petursdottir (2012). Moreover, other unpublished studies conducted in our lab showed that many children demonstrate the probed ABC intraverbals only after learning Exemplars and Categories. Yet, further research is needed to confirm this apparent difference between adult and children. Although the results obtained in Experiments I and 2 needs to be confirmed, all the results obtained so far are congruent with the following hypothesis: First, children need learning either the Exemplars or the Exemplars and Categories for showing the emergence of the ABC intraverbals. Second, as an individual acquires more experiences along his/her life with intraverbals of this type or of similar types, that person requires fewer components to show the emergence after learning intraverbals of this type with stimuli. That person would require learning only the Exemplars, and later on that person could demonstrate the emergence of the ABC intraverbals without the need of learning the Exemplars or the Categories. See an analysis in terms of developmental capabilities in Perez-Gonzalez (2014).

The results of the present experiments demonstrate the interrelation among intraverbals of different type with common stimuli. It is very likely that the processes involved in the emergence of the probed ABC intraverbals are representative of the emergence processes with intraverbals that are related to one another in a unidirectional way (Exemplars and Categories are related in a unidirectional way because the emergence of Categories after learning the Exemplars is more likely than in the opposite way). The emergence processes with intraverbals of other types, however, could very likely be different. For example, emergence of antonyms (e.g., Perez-Gonzalez et al. 2007) is bidirectional (because the probability of the emergence of the B-A intraverbal given A-B is the same as having the emergence of the A-B intraverbal given B-A. If the stimuli do not affect responding, then they could facilitate emergence; intraverbals involving native and foreign words (e.g.. Petursdottir and Haflidadottir 2009; Petursdottir et al. 2008a, b), however, are unidirectional; hence, the processes involved in the emergence with complex intraverbals with native and foreign words could be similar to those shown with Exemplars and Categories. Further research is necessary to study this hypothesis.

Adults Reasoning The present research shows some basic learning processes involved in reasoning. According to some views that suppose that adults possess a great reasoning competence (for an extensive review, see Kahneman 2011), the present results could be considered surprising. Under the particular conditions of the present research, with a minimum of specific instructions, the adults did not show the emergence of all relations. Thus, after learning only the A-B and B-C relations, some adults' performance is like that of some children. Therefore, the present research and those of Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008) and Carp and Petursdottir (2012) indicate that some learning sequence promotes emergence of relations, which is taken as evidence of reasoning. Other learning sequences, however, do not guarantee emergence (e.g, do not show reasoning). Even more, the results with two participants of the Condition with Categories may be due to the fact that the learning sequence consisting of learning first the ABC intraverbals and thereafter the Categories could interfere with reasoning. Those facts have important practical applications, for promoting reasoning in normal-developing persons and persons with learning disabilities.

Psychol Rec (2014) 64:509-526

DOI 10.1007/s40732-014-0047-.6

Caption: Table 2, in random order. Each intraverbal was presented twice, making up a 12-trial probe.

Caption: Fig. 3 Performance of participants of Condition with Categories in the Probe of the 12 operants. Each data point represents correct responses in a 12-trial probe. Typically, two probes were conducted in a row. Notice that participants Edgar and Alexis had participated before in Experiment 1 and they received six cycles of teaching or reviewing A-B and B-C and probing the remaining ABC intraverbals; in the 12 12-trial probes conducted they had not demonstrated the emergence of all intraveibals, as shown in Fig. 2

Caption: Fig. 4 Performance of participants of Condition with Exentplars in the 00. Probe of the 12 operants. Each data point represents correct responses in a 12-trial probe. Typically, two probes were conducted in a row. Notice that participant Dulce had participated before in Experiment 2 and she received six cycles of teaching A-B and B-C, and the Categories and probing the remaining ABC intraverbals; in the 12 12-trial probes conducted she had not demonstrated the emergence of all intraverbals, as shown in Fig. 3

Acknowledgments This research was supported by grants SEJ2006-08055. of the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia, and PS12009-08644, of the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spain, to the first author. This research was conducted as partial fulfillment of the doctoral dissertation of the second author under the supervision of the first author.

References

Axe, J. B. (2008). Conditional discrimination in the intraverbal relation: a review and recommendations for future research. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 24, 159-174.

Bmam, S. J., & Poling, A. (1983). Development of intraverbal behavior in mentally retarded individuals through transfer of stimulus control procedures: Classifications of verbal responses. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 279-302.

Carp, C. L., & Petuisdottir, A. I. (2012). Effects of two training conditions. of the emergence of novel intraverbals. An extension of Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2008). Psychological Record, 62, I 87-206.

Chase, P. M., Johnson, K. R., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1985). Verbal relations within instruction: Are there subclasses of the intraverbal? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 301-3 13.

Cihon, T. M. (2007). A review of training intraverbal repertories: Can precision teaching help? The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 23, 123 133.

Finkel, A. S., & Williams, R. L. (2001). A comparison of textual and echoic prompts on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior in a six-year-old boy with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behaviot1 18, 61-70.

Goldsmith, T. R., LeBlanc, L. A., & Sautter, R. A. (2007). Teaching intraverbal behavior to children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 1-13.

Greer, R. D., Yuan, L., & Gautreaux, G. (2005). Novel dictation and intraverbal responses as a function of a multiple exemplar history. The Analpis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 99--116.

Ingvarsson, E. T., Cammilleri, A. P., & Macias, H. (2012). Emergent listener responses following intraverbal training in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 654664.

Ingvarsson, E.T., & Hollobaugh, T. (2010). Aquisition of intraverbal behavior: Teaching children with autism to mand for answers to questions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 11-17.

Ingvarsson, E. T., Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Stephenson, K. M. (2007). An evaluation of intraverbal training to generate socially appropriate responses to novel questions. Journal clApplied Behavior Ana1vsis. 40, 411-429.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, first and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Guiraux.

Kelley, M. E., Shillingsburg, M. A., Castro, M. J., Addison, L. R., & LaRue, R. H. (2007). Further evaluation of emerging speech in children with developmental disabilities: Training verbal behavior. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 40, 431-445.

Kisamore, A. N., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2011). Training preschool children to use visual imagining as a problem-solving strategy for complex categorization tasks. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis. 44, 255-278.

Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. G. (1985). The functional independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: 43, 5-19.

Lerman, D. C., Patten, M., Addison, L. R., Vomdran, C. M., Volkert, V. M., & Kodak, T. (2005). A methodology for assessing the functions of emerging speech in children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 303-316.

Luciano, M. C. (1986). Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of productive intraverbal behavior through transfer of stimulus control procedures. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7,1-20.

Miguel, C. F., Petursdottir, A. L., & Carr, J. E. (2005). The effects..of multiple-tact and receptive discrimination training on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior; 21, 27-41.

Partington, J. W., & Bailey, J. S. (1993). Teaching of intraverbal behavior to preschool children. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 9-18.

Perez-Gonzalez, L. A. (2014). Teaching and inducing verbal capabilities at the core curriculum for an effective intervention for people with autism. International Journal of Behavior Analysis & Autism Spectrum Disorders. In press.

Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., & Belloso-Diaz, C. (2005). Tacts and intraverbals to fircilitate the emergence of novel intraverbals. Communication presented to the Second Conferenceof-the European Association fbr Behavior Analysis. Poland: Gdansk.

Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Belloso-Diaz, C., & Williams, G. (2006). The effect of teaching the response in the emergence of novel intraverbals. Atlanta: Communication presented to the Annual Conference of the Association for Behavior Analysis.

Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Garcia-Asenjo, L., Williams, G., & Camerero, J. J. (2007). Emergence of intraverbal antonyms in children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 697-701.

Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Herszlikowicz, K., & Williams, G. (2008). Stimulus relations analysis and the emergence of novel intraverbals. P.sychological Record, 58, 95-129.

Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Salameh, J., & Garcia-Asenjo, L. (2013). Unidirectional transfer between two types of intraverbals. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Petursdottir, A. I., & Haflidadottir, R. D. (2009). A Comparison of four strategies for teaching a small foreign-language vocabulary. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal.vsis, 42, 685-690.

Petursdottir, A. I., Carr, J. E., Lechago, S. A., & Alrnason, S. M. (2008a). An evaluation of intraverbal training and listener training for teaching categorization skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 53-68.

Petursdottir, A. I., Olafsdottir, A. R., & Aradettir, B. (20081)). The effects of tact and listener training on the emergence of bidirectional intraverbal relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 411-415. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-411.

Poison, D. A. D., & Parsons, J. A. (2000). Selection-based versus topography-based responding: An important distinction for stimulus equivalence? The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 17, 105-128.

Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 72, 117-137.

Sautter, R. A., LeBlanc, L. A., Jay, A. A., Goldsmith, T. R., & Can, J. E. (2011). The role of problem solving in complex intraverbal repertoires. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 227-244.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Sundberg, C. T., & Sundberg, M. L. (1990). Comparing topography- based verbal behavior with stimulus selection-based verbal behav- ior. The Anal..vsis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 31-41.

Sundberg, M. L., San Juan, B., Dawdy, M., & Arguelles, M. (1990). The acquisition of facts, mands, and intraverbals by individuals with traumatic brain injury. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 8, 83-99.

Vedora, J., Meunier, L., & Mackay, H. (2009). Teaching intraverbal behavior to children with autism: A comparison of textual and echoic prompts. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 25, 79-86.

Vignes, T. (2007). A comparison of topography-based and selection-based verbal behavior in typically developed children and developmentally disabled persons with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 23,113-122.

Watkins, C. L., Pack-Teixteira, L., & Howard, J. S. (1989). Teaching intraverbal behavior to severely retarded children. The Analyvis of Verbal Behavior 7,69-81.

Because the study was conducted in Spanish, all the intraverbals had a similar structure; also, we used only one word to refer to the chemical group, as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Luis Antonio Perez-Gonzalez * Carlota Belloso-Diaz * Maria Carames-Mendez * Benigno Alonso-Alvarez

L. A. Perez-Gonzalez * C. Belloso-Diaz * M. Carames-Mendez * B. Alonso-Alvarez

Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Plaza Feijoo s/n.

Despacho 209, 33003 Oviedo, Spain

e-mail: laperez@uniovi.es
COPYRIGHT 2014 The Psychological Record
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Author:Antonio, Luis
Publication:The Psychological Record
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2014
Words:10241
Previous Article:Younger and Older Adults' Opinions on Driver Distractions and Potential Cellular Phone Laws.
Next Article:Understanding racial attitudes through the stimulus equivalence paradigm.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters