Scholarlink

<p>Two experiments measured the effects of adding a social label to one of the stimuli in an equivalence class and then examining the distribution of resources among two three-member equivalence classes (A1, B1, C1 and A2, B2, C2) comprising nonsense syllables. Across a number of conditions, a social label was assigned to C2 (YIM). The social labels described YIM as either a “GOOD,” “BAD,” or “neither a GOOD or BAD” person. Participants then were instructed to distribute tokens to each of the six stimuli; the sequence of exposure to the social labels varied across experiments. Results showed that the label that was assigned influenced the distribution of tokens. When the label for YIM was “GOOD,” Class 2 received the most tokens; with YIM receiving the most tokens in this class. When the label for YIM was “BAD,” Class 1 received more tokens than Class 2. The “NEITHER GOOD or BAD” label resulted in equal distributions of tokens between classes. Across experiments, the sequence in which the social labels were assigned had no significant effect on the transfer of function within Class 2. Results are discussed in the context of transfer of function in equivalence classes and its potential use in experimental social psychology.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Effects of Social Labels on the Allocation of Resources among Equivalent Stimuli: An Extended Replication

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月10日

查看全文
  • Keelan Hall,
  • Dean Reid,
  • Mickey Keenan,
  • Robert Bones

摘要

Two experiments measured the effects of adding a social label to one of the stimuli in an equivalence class and then examining the distribution of resources among two three-member equivalence classes (A1, B1, C1 and A2, B2, C2) comprising nonsense syllables. Across a number of conditions, a social label was assigned to C2 (YIM). The social labels described YIM as either a “GOOD,” “BAD,” or “neither a GOOD or BAD” person. Participants then were instructed to distribute tokens to each of the six stimuli; the sequence of exposure to the social labels varied across experiments. Results showed that the label that was assigned influenced the distribution of tokens. When the label for YIM was “GOOD,” Class 2 received the most tokens; with YIM receiving the most tokens in this class. When the label for YIM was “BAD,” Class 1 received more tokens than Class 2. The “NEITHER GOOD or BAD” label resulted in equal distributions of tokens between classes. Across experiments, the sequence in which the social labels were assigned had no significant effect on the transfer of function within Class 2. Results are discussed in the context of transfer of function in equivalence classes and its potential use in experimental social psychology.