{"id":{"repo_id":"drake","oai_identifier":"oai:escholarshare.drake.edu:2092/1066"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/drake/oai:escholarshare.drake.edu:2092/1066","repository":{"repo_id":"drake","name":"Drake University","base_url":"https://escholarshare.drake.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A Mathematical Model for Type II Instrumental Discriminations","abstract":"Using the same assumptions found in the Trabasso & Bower (1968) mathematical model for type I and relevant redundant cue (RRC) discriminations, a mathematical model was proposed for type II discriminations. A type I discrimination has one relevant cue. An RRC discrimination has two relevant cues, either of which could be used, independently, to solve the discrimination problem. A type II discrimination has two relevant cues, both of which must be used before the discrimination problem can be solved. In the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model, the difficulty of a type I discrimination problem was defined in terms of the salience of the relevant cue, where salience was represented as a measure of the probability of S attending to a particular cue in a stimulus complex. The difficulty of an RRC discrimination problem was defined as the sum of the two relevant saliences. Since a type II discrimination requires attention and usage of both relevant cues in the problem, the difficulty of the discrimination problem was assumed to be a multiplicative function of the two relevant cue saliences. This hypothesis was tested and supported. The mathematical model could predict the mean errors for a type II discrimination. However, the experiment also produced data which conflicted with Trabasso & Bower's (1968) assumptions. For example, Ss were capable of learning a new solution to a discrimination problem, even though a previously learned solution was still correct. It was concluded that changes in the underlying assumptions of the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model may necessitate a change in the mathematical model itself.","abstract_html":"Using the same assumptions found in the Trabasso & Bower (1968) mathematical model for type I and relevant redundant cue (RRC) discriminations, a mathematical model was proposed for type II discriminations. A type I discrimination has one relevant cue. An RRC discrimination has two relevant cues, either of which could be used, independently, to solve the discrimination problem. A type II discrimination has two relevant cues, both of which must be used before the discrimination problem can be solved. In the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model, the difficulty of a type I discrimination problem was defined in terms of the salience of the relevant cue, where salience was represented as a measure of the probability of S attending to a particular cue in a stimulus complex. The difficulty of an RRC discrimination problem was defined as the sum of the two relevant saliences. Since a type II discrimination requires attention and usage of both relevant cues in the problem, the difficulty of the discrimination problem was assumed to be a multiplicative function of the two relevant cue saliences. This hypothesis was tested and supported. The mathematical model could predict the mean errors for a type II discrimination. However, the experiment also produced data which conflicted with Trabasso & Bower's (1968) assumptions. For example, Ss were capable of learning a new solution to a discrimination problem, even though a previously learned solution was still correct. It was concluded that changes in the underlying assumptions of the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model may necessitate a change in the mathematical model itself.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Becker, Robert Fred"],"institution":"Drake University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1972,"date_issued":"1972-12","date_published":"1972-12","updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:19:57Z","subjects":["Problem solving.","Mathematical models."],"languages":["en_US"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["1972 .B388"],"render_values":[{"text":"1972 .B388","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2092/1066","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Becker, Robert Fred"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2010-02-10T20:14:59Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2010-02-10T20:14:59Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1972-12"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Drake University"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Problem solving.","Mathematical models."]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en_US"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["1972 .B388"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2092/1066"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["47 leaves."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Using the same assumptions found in the Trabasso & Bower (1968) mathematical model for type I and relevant redundant cue (RRC) discriminations, a mathematical model was proposed for type II discriminations. A type I discrimination has one relevant cue. An RRC discrimination has two relevant cues, either of which could be used, independently, to solve the discrimination problem. A type II discrimination has two relevant cues, both of which must be used before the discrimination problem can be solved. In the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model, the difficulty of a type I discrimination problem was defined in terms of the salience of the relevant cue, where salience was represented as a measure of the probability of S attending to a particular cue in a stimulus complex. The difficulty of an RRC discrimination problem was defined as the sum of the two relevant saliences. Since a type II discrimination requires attention and usage of both relevant cues in the problem, the difficulty of the discrimination problem was assumed to be a multiplicative function of the two relevant cue saliences. This hypothesis was tested and supported. The mathematical model could predict the mean errors for a type II discrimination. However, the experiment also produced data which conflicted with Trabasso & Bower's (1968) assumptions. For example, Ss were capable of learning a new solution to a discrimination problem, even though a previously learned solution was still correct. It was concluded that changes in the underlying assumptions of the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model may necessitate a change in the mathematical model itself."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A Mathematical Model for Type II Instrumental Discriminations"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Becker, Robert Fred"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2010-02-10T20:14:59Z"],"dc:date.available":["2010-02-10T20:14:59Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1972-12"],"dc:description":["47 leaves."],"dc:description.abstract":["Using the same assumptions found in the Trabasso & Bower (1968) mathematical model for type I and relevant redundant cue (RRC) discriminations, a mathematical model was proposed for type II discriminations. A type I discrimination has one relevant cue. An RRC discrimination has two relevant cues, either of which could be used, independently, to solve the discrimination problem. A type II discrimination has two relevant cues, both of which must be used before the discrimination problem can be solved. In the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model, the difficulty of a type I discrimination problem was defined in terms of the salience of the relevant cue, where salience was represented as a measure of the probability of S attending to a particular cue in a stimulus complex. The difficulty of an RRC discrimination problem was defined as the sum of the two relevant saliences. Since a type II discrimination requires attention and usage of both relevant cues in the problem, the difficulty of the discrimination problem was assumed to be a multiplicative function of the two relevant cue saliences. This hypothesis was tested and supported. The mathematical model could predict the mean errors for a type II discrimination. However, the experiment also produced data which conflicted with Trabasso & Bower's (1968) assumptions. For example, Ss were capable of learning a new solution to a discrimination problem, even though a previously learned solution was still correct. It was concluded that changes in the underlying assumptions of the Trabasso & Bower (1968) model may necessitate a change in the mathematical model itself."],"dc:identifier.other":["1972 .B388"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/2092/1066"],"dc:language.iso":["en_US"],"dc:publisher":["Drake University"],"dc:subject":["Problem solving.","Mathematical models."],"dc:title":["A Mathematical Model for Type II Instrumental Discriminations"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:19:57Z"}