We used a three-step procedure to produce and disclose non-similarity-based conceptualization in pigeons. Merely by being associated with the same response in the first step, classes of perceptually dissimilar stimuli, like cars and chairs, appear to amalgamate into a new category of functionally equivalent Stimuli. Thus, requiring a new response to be made to only one of these two stimulus classes in the second step transfers to the other stimulus class in the third step. This case of non-similarity-based conceptualization in pigeons is relevant to the construction of superordinate categories and to the role of language in secondary or mediated generalization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstleyS.L.WassermanE.A. (1992). Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons: All negative stimuli are not created equal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.18, 193–207.
2.
BhattR.S.WassermanE.A. (1989). Secondary generalization and categorization in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 213–224.
3.
BhattR.S.WassermanE.A.ReynoldsW.F.Jr.KnaussK.S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.14, 219–234.
4.
HerrnsteinR.J. (1985). Riddles of natural categorization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. B308, 129–144.
5.
HerrnsteinR.J. (1990). Levels of stimulus control: A functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133–166.
6.
HullC.L. (1943). Principles of behavior, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
7.
KellerF.S.SchoenfeldW.N. (1950). Principles of psychology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
8.
LeaS.E.G. (1984). In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? InRoitblatH.L.BeverT.G.TerraceH.S., (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp.263–277), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
RobertsW.A.MazmanianD.S. (1988). Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.14, 247–260.
10.
RoschE.MervisC.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
11.
SidmanM.RauzinR.LazarR.CunninghamS.TailbyW.CarriganP. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44.
12.
UrcuioliP.J.ZentallT.R.Jackson-SmithP.SteirnJ.N. (1989). Evidence for common coding in many-to-one matching: Retention, intertrial interference, and transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.15, 264–273.
13.
VaughanW.Jr. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36–42.
14.
WassermanE.A.KiedingerR.E.BhattR.S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categories, subcategories, and pseudocategories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 235–246.
15.
ZentallT.R.SteirnJ.N.SherburneL.M.UrcuioliP.J. (1991). Common coding in pigeons assessed through partial versus total reversals of many-to-one conditional and simple discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 194–201.
