Premium
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DEFINITIONS AND PROCEDURES: A REPLY TO STOKES, OSNES, AND GUEVREMONT
Author(s) -
Catania A. Charles,
Shimoff Eliot,
Matthews Byron A.
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
journal of applied behavior analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1938-3703
pISSN - 0021-8855
DOI - 10.1901/jaba.1987.20-401
Subject(s) - contingency , psychology , space (punctuation) , class (philosophy) , population , contingency table , cognitive psychology , cognitive science , epistemology , artificial intelligence , computer science , machine learning , sociology , philosophy , demography , operating system
Stokes, Osnes, and Guevremont's (1987) implicit definition of correspondence classes appears dose to ours (Matthews, Shimoff, & Catania, 1987). Their definition, however, is fundamentally procedural and thus may have to be modified as experimental methodologies are refined. The advantage of our contingency‐space analysis is that it is independent of specific procedures and focuses attention on problems inherent in some procedural definitions. Specifically, a contingency‐space analysis addresses the issue of distinguishing specific instances from classes and reminds us that correspondence can be identified as a class only on the basis of observing a population of opportunities for say/do sequences in which the subject sometimes does not say.