Generalization following symmetrical intradimensional discrimination training.

A challenge for generalization models is to specify how excitation generated from a CS+ (i.e., positive evidence) should interact with inhibition from a CS- (i.e., negative evidence) to produce generalized responding. Empirically, many generalization phenomena are consistent with the monotonicity principle, which states that additional positive evidence should increase generalized responding, whereas additional negative evidence should decrease responding. However, a recent study (Lee et al.,, 2019) demonstrated that additional negative evidence can sometimes increase generalization, in direct contrast to animal data and associative accounts of generalization. The current study investigated whether a similar effect could be found in a symmetrical intradimensional discrimination procedure with two sources of negative evidence (CS-s) located on each side of a CS+. In three experiments, we compared generalization along a green-blue dimension between one group of participants who learned that an aqua-colored shape (CS+) predicted an outcome (Single Positive group) with another group who also learned that both a slightly greener and a slightly bluer shape led to no outcome (Double Negative group). Experiments 1A and 1B showed no effect of the additional negative evidence in increasing generalization around the CS+. However, changing a stimulus feature at test (shape) resulted in a higher gradient peak in the Double Negative group relative to the Single Positive group in Experiment 2. Although this result violates the monotonicity principle, an extended version of Blough's (1975) model applying cue competition to multiple stimulus dimensions (i.e., shape and color) successfully replicated the group differences. Our results suggest that associative mechanisms can account for some instances in which negative evidence increases generalization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).