TY - JOUR
T1 - Methods for studying symbolic behavior and category formation
T2 - Contributions of stimulus equivalence research
AU - Wilkinson, Krista M.
AU - McIlvane, William J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding for the research and manuscript preparation was supported by NICHD Grant HD 25995. The authors thank their colleagues at the Shriver Center and Joe Spradlin and Lauren Adamson for their insights during the conceptualization of this article.
PY - 2001/9
Y1 - 2001/9
N2 - How do humans categorize items and events in their world, and what role does language play in this process? Such questions have been at the center of long-standing debate among philosophers and scientists from many eras, cultures, and disciplines. Fundamental to this debate are difficult questions of what is meant by the concept of a linguistic symbol. For instance, philosophers and scientists alike have articulated a conceptual distinction between the relations involved in rich linguistic symbols (true words) as compared to restricted paired associates (rotelearned associations). Yet it remains difficult to specify behaviorally what actually makes these two types of relations different. In this article, we describe methodology that may offer an operationalized model that allows empirical analysis of paired associate versus symbolic learning. Like any methodology, our approach alone does not pretend to fully resolve age-old questions. However, we intend to illustrate distinct advantages offered within this approach to scholars interested in symbolic functioning and its development.
AB - How do humans categorize items and events in their world, and what role does language play in this process? Such questions have been at the center of long-standing debate among philosophers and scientists from many eras, cultures, and disciplines. Fundamental to this debate are difficult questions of what is meant by the concept of a linguistic symbol. For instance, philosophers and scientists alike have articulated a conceptual distinction between the relations involved in rich linguistic symbols (true words) as compared to restricted paired associates (rotelearned associations). Yet it remains difficult to specify behaviorally what actually makes these two types of relations different. In this article, we describe methodology that may offer an operationalized model that allows empirical analysis of paired associate versus symbolic learning. Like any methodology, our approach alone does not pretend to fully resolve age-old questions. However, we intend to illustrate distinct advantages offered within this approach to scholars interested in symbolic functioning and its development.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035636202&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035636202&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1006/drev.2000.0526
DO - 10.1006/drev.2000.0526
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0035636202
SN - 0273-2297
VL - 21
SP - 355
EP - 374
JO - Developmental Review
JF - Developmental Review
IS - 3
ER -