Equating and Assigning Targets in the Adapted Alternating Treatments Design: Review of Special Education Journals

The current review examined the prevalence of the adapted alternating treatments design (AATD) across 22 special education journals and methods to equate and assign target sets to experimental conditions in the AATD. Since the seminal description of the design in 1985, a total of 49 articles were published using the AATD across 12 of the reviewed journals. The most prominent methods of equating target sets differed from prior reviews of behavior-analytic journals, likely due to the preponderance of response chains being targeted in special education research using the AATD. The majority of articles describe at least one method for equating target sets, although multiple methods were common. Additional methodological strengths in this literature included methods to reduce potential bias when assigning target sets to experimental conditions and counterbalancing target sets across participants. Considerations for practitioners and researchers when using the AATD are described.

SHAPING COOPERATIVE RESPONDING: A SYSTEMATIC REPLICATION OF DANIEL (1942).

Cooperation between two pigeons was trained in a systematic replication of an earlier study by Daniel (1942) using rats and electric shock avoidance. After both pigeons were trained separately to eat from a food magazine and to stand on a platform located 45 cm from the food magazine, two stimulus lights were added. Different responses of each pigeon were brought under the stimulus control of the lights. In the presence of one light, magazine approach by one of the pigeons was reinforced and in the presence of the other, standing on the platform was reinforced. These functions were reversed for the other pigeon, that is, the light that was the SD for magazine approach for Pigeon A was the SD for the platform response for Pigeon B. When behavior was under stimulus control, the pigeons were placed together in the study space. Across sessions, the lights were removed gradually, transferring stimulus control to the co-actor’s behavior. Thus, the terminal performance was two interlocking response chains: as one pigeon approached the magazine, the other approached the platform, standing on which operated the feeder for up to 7 s. After one pigeon ate for a duration dependent upon the co-actor’s platform standing, the two switched positions. The results are discussed in relation to the definition of social behavior and the role of basic learning principles in social behavior.

Sameness May Be a Natural Concept That Does Not Require Learning

It has been assumed that when pigeons learn how to match to sample, they learn simple stimulus-response chains but not the concept of sameness. However, transfer to novel stimuli has been influenced by pigeons’ tendency to be neophobic. We trained pigeons on matching ( n = 7) and mismatching ( n = 8) with colors as samples and, with each sample, one color as the nonmatching comparison. We then replaced either the matching or the nonmatching stimulus with a familiar stimulus never presented with that sample. Results suggest that for both matching and mismatching, pigeons locate the stimulus that matches the sample: If the task involves matching, they chose it; if it involves mismatching, they avoid it. Thus, the concept of sameness is the basis for correct choice with both tasks. This finding suggests that sameness is a basic concept that does not have to be learned and may have evolved in many species, including humans.