Effects of two sorting formats and four test criteria on equivalence class formation

The likelihood of forming equivalence classes was influenced by the format used in sorting tests and by four different test criteria applied to the same data set. After 30 participants learned 12 conditional discriminations, MTS tests evaluated the emergence of three 5-member equivalence classes. These tests were followed by sorting tests that were conducted in clustering or stacking formats. After training, 20% of participants formed the classes. Of the 75% who did not, classes emerged for 36% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of consecutive class-indicative sorts in the first two sorting tests, and by 45% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of two successive class-indicative sorts in any of the four sorting tests. Overall, a somewhat higher percentage of participants formed classes during stacking than during clustering, sometimes on a delayed basis. Finally, even higher yields were obtained when criterion was defined as two nonconsecutive class-indicative sorting tests. When classes did not form, clustering rather than stacking tests generated larger proportions of stereotyped, participant-defined, three-member classes and two-term relations but stacking generated more one-stimulus "groupings." Thus, class formation was influenced by sorting format and the criteria used to define class emergence. Also, sorting influenced performances even during failed class formation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Published
2025-05-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.70017
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.89
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effects of two sorting formats and four test criteria on equivalence class formation

Lanny Fields, Erik Arntzen
2 citations
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Behavioral and Psychological Studies
6.89
article

Effects of two sorting formats and four test criteria on equivalence class formation

Lanny Fields, Erik Arntzen
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The likelihood of forming equivalence classes was influenced by the format used in sorting tests and by four different test criteria applied to the same data set. After 30 participants learned 12 conditional discriminations, MTS tests evaluated the emergence of three 5-member equivalence classes. These tests were followed by sorting tests that were conducted in clustering or stacking formats. After training, 20% of participants formed the classes. Of the 75% who did not, classes emerged for 36% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of consecutive class-indicative sorts in the first two sorting tests, and by 45% and 15% of participants during stacking and clustering, respectively, with a criterion of two successive class-indicative sorts in any of the four sorting tests. Overall, a somewhat higher percentage of participants formed classes during stacking than during clustering, sometimes on a delayed basis. Finally, even higher yields were obtained when criterion was defined as two nonconsecutive class-indicative sorting tests. When classes did not form, clustering rather than stacking tests generated larger proportions of stereotyped, participant-defined, three-member classes and two-term relations but stacking generated more one-stimulus "groupings." Thus, class formation was influenced by sorting format and the criteria used to define class emergence. Also, sorting influenced performances even during failed class formation.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of BehaviorVol. 124(1)
Queens College, CUNY (US), The Graduate Center, CUNY (US), OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Behavioral and Psychological Studies
6.89
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.