Acquisition of the People Concept in Pigeons

Malott, Richard W.; Siddall, James

doi:10.2466/pr0.1972.31.1.3

Cited by 51 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Poole and Lander (1971) demonstrated that pigeons could learn to discriminate between pictures of different breeds of pigeons, other animals, and nonliving objects. Malott and Siddall (1972) used pictures of people, and Cerelia (1979) reported that pigeons could learn to discriminate between oak leaves and could respond to 40 new stimuli without a discrimination decrement. In related studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of oddity learning in the pigeon

Pisacreta

Lefave

Lesneski

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two pigeons were trained on a six-key modified oddity-from-sample procedure. The stimuli were color pictures of birds, butterflies, and human faces. Initially, the third peck on the sample key (which presented one of three different bird pictures) lit only one comparison key. Every three additional pecks on the sample illuminated another comparison key. Fifteen sample pecks produced the maximum of five comparison stimuli. A peck on the comparison key that presented the nonmatching bird picture produced grain. Pecks on matching keys turned off all the comparison keys and repeated the trial. The birds learned to peck each sample until the nonmatching comparison stimulus was produced, and then to peck that key. After acquisition (70%-90% accuracy), the three bird stimuli were replaced by a new set of three bird pictures. Subsequent phases provided new sets of bird, butterfly, and human face stimuli. Both birds showed transfer of oddity learning to the novel samples. The data suggest that the birds may have been engaging in conceptualtype oddity learning, rather than learning discrete five-key discriminations or a series of two component chains.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of oddity learning in the pigeon

Pisacreta

Lefave

Lesneski

et al. 1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most often, the grannnatical child will not be able to state the rules of grannnar. This is like the pigeon that cannot state the rules describing the concepts of human being and nonhuman being, though the bird's key peck is under the differential control of those stimulus classes (Hermstein & Loveland, 1964;Malott & Siddall, 1972).…”

Section: Rule-governance Vs Behavioral Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixing Metaphors: Skinner, Chomsky, and the Analysis of Verbal Events

Malott

1992

Behav. Soc. Iss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a friendly critique of Moerk's synthesis of cognitive and behavioral approaches to language. The critique addresses four dangers we all have trouble avoiding; (a) the confusion of rule· governed and contingency-controlled behavior, (b) the acceptance of the mentalistic implications common to cognitive terminology, (c) the nonrigorous use of behavioral concepts, and (d) the acceptance of the structuralist limitations common to linguistics.Our behaviorist heritage from the animal laboratory imposes an absurd burden: Most methodological behaviorists analyze human behavior as if human beings do not think or, if they do think, their thoughts have no impact on their overt behavior --the methodologicaJ-behavioristerror. At this point in the evolution of behavior analysis, most behavior analysts seem to be methodological behaviorists; that is, they deal with only directly observable independent and dependent variables; they shy away from inferences about covert processes. They shy away, though Skinner argued that our science will be incomplete without an understanding of covert or private events, difficult as that understanding may be to obtain (Skinner, 1945). However, even Skinner usually dealt with private events only as dependent variables rather than as intermediate variables in a causal chain.The cognitivist heritage from the human laboratory imposes an equally absurd burden: Cognitivists argue that, not only do human beings think, so do nonhuman animals --the cognitivist error.A more reasonable radical-behavioral view is that, though animals do not think, of course human beings do, at least part of the time; and, furthermore, our overt behavior would be much less effective in coping with our enviromnent, if it were otherwise. This is a radical-behavioral view, because it argues that such covert behavior follows the same laws of behavior as does overt behavior. It is from this radical-behavioral perspective that I address Ernst Moerk's integration of the work of Skinner and Chomsky (this issue). (For other commentaries on the relation between Skinner's and Chomsky's approaches to language see Anderson [1991] and MacCorquodale [1970].)

show abstract

“…To investigate the establishment of perceptual classes, most researchers have used simple discrimination training procedures in which many stimuli are drawn from two or more potential classes (e.g., Bhatt et al, 1988;Cook et al, 1990;Engelmann & Carnine, 1982;Herrnstein, 1990;Herrnstein, Loveland, & Cable, 1976;Honig & Stewart, 1988;Lubow, 1974;Malott & Siddall, 1972;Porter & Neuringer, 1985;Wasserman et al, 1988). In contrast, conditional discrimination training procedures have been used by a smaller number of researchers to investigate the establishment of perceptual classes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual Classes Established With Forced‐choice Primary Generalization Tests and Transfer of Function

Reeve

Fields

2001

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, 20 college students learned two identity conditional discriminations using squares that differed in interior-fill percentage (called Fill23 and Fill77). A two-choice generalization test was then presented with number of test trials varied across groups of subjects. The test samples were 19 squares that ranged in fill value from 23% to 77%; the comparisons were squares with Fill23 and Fill77. The resulting gradients did not vary as a function of number of test trials. When the generalization test was repeated with a third comparison, "neither," the ranges of fill values that occasioned the exclusive selection of Fill23 or Fill77 were direct functions of the number of prior two-choice generalization trials. Finally, a disriminability test revealed that Fill23 and Fill77 were disciminable from the intermediate fill values. In Experiment 2, perceptual classes were established with 5 new students using 760 forced-choice generalization test trials. The student were then trained to select a different glyph in the presence of Fill23 and Fill77, followed by a three-choice generalization test in which the 19 fill stimuli served as samples and the two glyphs served as comparisons. The gradients ovelapped with those previously obtained during the three-choice generalization test that used Fill23 and Fill77 as comparisons. Finally, a discriminability test showed that many adjacent stimuli along thc fill dimension were discriminable from each other. Together, the results of both experiments suggest that ranges of fill-based stimuli functioned as members of perceptual classes, and each class also functioned as a transfer network for a new selection-based response.

show abstract

Acquisition of the People Concept in Pigeons

Cited by 51 publications

References 15 publications

Transfer of oddity learning in the pigeon

Transfer of oddity learning in the pigeon

Mixing Metaphors: Skinner, Chomsky, and the Analysis of Verbal Events

Perceptual Classes Established With Forced‐choice Primary Generalization Tests and Transfer of Function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About