Definitely, our last word

Argues that the suggestion of L. R. Goulet (see PA, Vol. 46:Issue 3) that 2 rule-based nonmediational mechanisms (doing-the-opposite and frequency cues) can account for developmental changes obtained in reversal vs. 1/2-reversal discrimination-shift experiments suffers from several limitations: (a)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychological bulletin 1971-04, Vol.75 (4), p.290-293
Main Authors: Kendler, Howard H, Kendler, Tracy S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cognitive Mediation
Discrimination
Human
Learning
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Argues that the suggestion of L. R. Goulet (see PA, Vol. 46:Issue 3) that 2 rule-based nonmediational mechanisms (doing-the-opposite and frequency cues) can account for developmental changes obtained in reversal vs. 1/2-reversal discrimination-shift experiments suffers from several limitations: (a) means of differentiation of mediated and nonmediated mechanisms is not specified; (b) the doing-the-opposite hypothesis fails to account for several reversal-shift phenomena; (c) the data offered in support of the doing-the-opposite hypothesis possess methodological, informational, and logical insufficiencies; and (d) the frequency theory of verbal discrimination as it applies to ontogenetic changes in reversal-shift behavior is not sufficiently developed to be evaluated. It is concluded that although other formulations may prove to be more valid, at present the coordinated single-unit and mediational stimulus-response formulation most adequately integrates the phenomena associated with developmental changes in reversal-shift behavior.
ISSN:0033-2909
1939-1455
DOI:10.1037/h0030821