Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-27T02:33:19.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stimulus and Response Generalization: A Stochastic Model Relating Generalization to Distance in Psychological Space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Roger N. Shepard
Roger N. Shepard*
Affiliation:
Naval Research Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A mathematical model is developed in an attempt to relate errors in multiple stimulus-response situations to psychological inter-stimulus and inter response distances. The fundamental assumptions are (a) that the stimulus and response confusions go on independently of each other, (b) that the probability of a stimulus confusion is an exponential decay function of the psychological distance between the stimuli, and (c) that the probability of a response confusion is an exponential decay function of the psychological distance between the responses. The problem of the operational definition of psychological distance is considered in some detail.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 1957 , pp. 325 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © 1957 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper is based upon the theoretical sections of a Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University and upon subsequent modification carried out on a National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Postdoctoral Associateship at the Naval Research Laboratory. The author is particularly indebted to Drs. C. I. Hovland, R. P. Abelson, and B. S. Rosner for their generous advice and support. Helpful criticisms have also been contributed by Drs. G. A. Miller, F. A. Logan, W. D. Garvey, J. G. Holland, and H. Glaser.

†

Now at Psychological Laboratories, Harvard University.

References

Attneave, F.. Dimensions of similarity. Amer. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, 516–556CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenthal, L. M.. Theory and applications of distance geometry, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Bilodeau, E. A., Baron, M. R.. Bidirectional gradients in the strength of a generalized voluntary response to stimuli on a visual-spatial dimension. J. exp. Psychol., 1951, 41, 52–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busemann, H.. The geometry of geodesics, New York: Academic Press, 1955Google Scholar
Bush, R. R., Mosteller, F.. A model for stimulus generalization and discrimination. Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, R. R., Mosteller, F.. Stochastic models for learning, New York: Wiley, 1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, C. P.. Development of response generalization gradients. J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 50, 26–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, W. K.. Towards a statistical theory of learning. Psychol. Rev., 1950, 57, 94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, F. C.. An analysis of an operant discrimination. J. Psychol., 1948, 26, 93–123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. J.. Sensory generalization with voluntary reactions. J. exp. Psychol., 1939, 24, 237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H., Wolfle, D. L.. A theory of learning and transfer: I.. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, N., Kalish, H. I.. Discriminability and stimulus generalization. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 79–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hovland, C. I.. The generalization of conditioned responses: I. The sensory generalization of conditioned responses with varying frequencies of tone. J. gen. Psychol., 1937, 17, 125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovland, C. I.. Human learning and retention. In Stevens, S. S. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental psychology, New York: Wiley, 1951Google Scholar
Hull, C. L.. Principles of behavior, New York: Appleton-Century, 1943Google Scholar
Kelley, J. L.. General topology, New York: Van Nostrand, 1955Google Scholar
Messick, S. J.. Some recent theoretical developments in multidimensional scaling. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1956, 16, 82–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. J., Abelson, R. P.. The additive constant problem in multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1956, 12, 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolius, G.. Stimulus generalization of an instrumental response as a function of the number of reinforced trials. J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 49, 105–111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noble, M. E., Bahrick, H. P.. Response generalization as a function of intratask response similarity. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 405–412CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pillsbury, W. B.. A study in apperception. Amer. J. Psychol., 1897, 8, 315–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotkin, L.. Stimulus generalization in Morse code learning. Arch. Psychol., 1943, 40, 287Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, G.. Stimulus generalization as a function of level of experimentally induced anxiety. J. exp. Psychol., 1953, 45, 35–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurstone, L. L.. Multiple-factor analysis, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1947Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S.. Multidimensional scaling: I. Theory and method. Psychometrika, 1952, 17, 401–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodworth, R. S., Schlosberg, H.. Experimental psychology, New York: Holt, 1955Google Scholar
Young, G., Householder, A. S.. Discussion of a set of points in terms of their mutual distances. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar