Journal of Experimental Psychology

1963, Vol. 65, No. 4, 339-346

STIMULUS GENERALIZATION ALONG ONE AND TWO

DIMENSIONS IN PIGEONS1
CHARLES M. BUTTER
University of Michigan

2 groups of pigeons were tested to compare 1-dimensional with 2-

dimensional generalization and to determine whether stimulus dimen-
sions have interacting effects of generalization. Following single stimu-
lus training, both groups were tested for generalization to stimuli varied
in wave length, in angular orientation, and in both dimensions. Both
groups showed less generalization to stimuli varied in 2 dimensions
than to stimuli varied in 1 dimension. Also, the 2 dimensions had inter-
acting effects on generalization. An attempt was made to describe the
mathematical form of this interaction in order to specify the function
relating multidimensional to unidimensional generalization.

Although stimulus generalization generalization decrements to stimuli

has been investigated from many varied in each dimension alone. On
viewpoints, little attention has been the other hand, stimulus interaction
directed toward the problem of how would result if generalization decre-
generalization takes place to stimuli ments to stimuli varied in one dimen-
varied along two or more dimensions sion did not summate. If such an
as compared with generalization to interaction were found, it would be
stimuli varied in a single dimension. of further interest to attempt to
Experimental analysis of this problem determine its mathematical form and
may be considered one approach to thus describe the function relating
the more general question of how multidimensional to unidimensional
different stimulus attributes combine generalization.
to affect perceptual similarity. The The method used in this study is
experiments reported here were under- the one employed by Guttman and
taken (a) to compare the amount of Kalish (1956) to obtain wave-length
generalization to stimuli varied in one generalization gradients in pigeons
and in two dimensions and (&) to following training with a single spec-
determine if two stimuli, each varied tral hue. The present study also
in a single dimension, exhibit inde- employed wave length as one stimulus
pendent or interacting effects on gen- dimension and a visual-spatial dimen-
eralization when combined (Guttman, sion, angular orientation of a band of
1956). Evidence for independent light (Butter & Guttman, 1957), as
effects of such stimuli on generaliza- the second dimension.
tion would be provided if the general- Generalization to stimuli varied
ization decrement to a stimulus varied in one and in several dimensions has
in two dimensions were the sum of been investigated in two recent studies.
1
The second experiment in this report Fink and Patton (1953) found that
forms part of a dissertation submitted to the the amount of generalization decre-
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Duke ment of an instrumental tube-drinking
University, 1959, in partial fulfillment of the response in rats was directly related
requirements for the PhD degree in psy- to the number of changed stimulus
chology. The author is indebted to Norman
Guttman for his advice in planning these components. White (1958) found
studies. more generalization decrement in
339
340 CHARLES M. BUTTER
children to stimuli varied in two
dimensions than to stimuli varied in
either dimension alone. However,
no conclusions were reached regard-
ing the quantitative manner in
which stimuli combined to affect
generalization.
In the present study, two groups
of pigeons were tested. The 5s in
Group 1 were tested for generalization
to a small number of stimuli, while
those in Group 2 were presented with
a larger number of stimuli in order
to obtain gradients of generalization.
METHOD
Apparatus.—The apparatus was an auto-
matically-controlled Skinner box, designed
for key pecking and similar to apparatuses
used in other wave-length generalization
studies (Guttman & Kalish, 19S6). The
special feature of the present apparatus, how-
ever, was that only a narrow band of light was
transmitted to the key, and this band of light
could be rotated about its center to provide
various degrees of angular orientation. A
circular translucent key, set within a frame,
was masked so that a band running through
its center, 1 in. in length and xs in. in width,
was exposed to the light beam. The key
could be rotated about its center within the
frame by means of spur gears engaged by a
rod. When 5s were key pecking, the rod was
moved back to disengage the gears on the key.
The angular orientation of the band of light
was set by means of a pointer attached to the
other end of the rod. Settings, calibrated by
a protractor, were accurate to 1°. Mono-
chromatic interference niters (Bausch and
Lomb Company), which could be mounted in
a holder in the light path, had band widths
varying between 7 and 9 mju. The nominal
and actual peak transmission values of the
niters are shown in Table I.2 In subsequent
reference to wave-length stimuli, nominal
values will be used. However, in graphs,
wave-length values are spaced according to
their actual values. A wratten K-2 filter was
used along with the 570- and 580-mM niters
in order to exclude lower wave lengths in the
first-order spectrum.
2
Nominal values are those given in the
manufacturer's catalogue, while actual values
are those determined spectrophotometrically
by the manufacturer and by E.
TABLE 1
NOMINAL AND ACTUAL PEAK TRANSMISSION
VALUES OF MONOCHROMATIC
INTERFERENCE FILTERS
Nominal Value (Mju) Actual Value (Mp)
520 522
Group 1 550 548
580 579
530 532"
540 539
Group 2 550 548
560 561
570 571
a
Upon completion of the experiment, spectrophpto-
metric analysis indicated that the peak transmissions
value of the 530-m/z filter had changed to 538 mji.
Because it is likely that this change occurred during the
course of the experiment, responses to this wave-length
stimulus are not included in the presentation of the
data.
Subjects.—The 5s were 37 experimentally
naive white Carnean pigeons, 10 of which
were assigned to Group 1, and 27 to Group 2.
All 5s were housed in individual cages and
maintained at 75% of their ad libitum body
weight throughout the experiment.
Procedure.—Following magazine training,
all 5s were trained to key peck by the method
of successive approximations and were then
given 50 continuous reinforcements on each of
2 successive days. During this stage of
training, an overhead light was on in the
apparatus, but in subsequent stages, the only
illumination in the box was provided by the
light from the key. In training sessions, the
band of light on the key was illuminated by
light of 550 mju and was in a vertical position
(90°). Following the completion of key peck
training, 5s were trained on a variable-interval
(VI) reinforcement schedule with a mean in-
terval of 1 min. Training sessions were ad-
ministered over 10 days and consisted of 30
55-sec. light-on periods, during which the key
was illuminated and key pecks were rein-
forced, alternating with 15-sec. light-off
periods, during which no key pecks were
reinforced.
On the day following the completion of VI
training, 5s were tested for stimulus gen-
eralization. Immediately before testing, 5s
were reinforced for pecking at the training
stimulus for six 30-sec. periods. Subsequent
generalization testing was carried out in
extinction.
In generalization testing, 5s in Group 1
were presented with stimuli differing in one
and in two dimensions from the training
 STIMULUS GENERALIZATION IN PIGEONS
stimulus by pairing three values of wave
length, 520, 550, and 580 myu, in all possible
combinations with three values of angular
orientation of the band of light, 40° (rotated
50° to the left of 90°), 90°, and 140° (rotated
50° to the right of 90°). In addition, 0°
(horizontal) was paired with 550 mp, so that
a total of 10 different stimulus combinations
was presented. These 10 stimulus com-
binations were presented 12 times, and within
each of the 12 blocks, the stimulus combina-
tions were arranged in a different random
order. Each stimulus presentation lasted for
30 sec. and was followed by a 15-sec.dark
period, during which stimuli were changed.
On the following day, Group 1 5s received a
second generalization test, administered in the
same manner as on the first day of testing.
The 5s in Group 2 were presented on the
first day of generalization testing with all
possible combinations of five values of wave
length, 530, 540, 550, 560, and 570 mM, and
five values of angular orientation, 30°, 60°,
90°, 120°, and 150°. Each of these 25 stimu-
lus combinations was presented six times, and
within each of the six blocks, stimulus com-
binations were arranged in a different random
order. Three blocks of stimuli were presented
on the second day of generalization testing.
In all other respects, testing was conducted
in the same manner as with Group 1.
RESULTS
Group 1.—Mean responses to stim-
uli presented in the two generalization
tests are plotted in Fig. 1 and 2 as a
FIRST TEST
520 550 5800°
WAVE LENGTH -
FIG. 1. Mean total responses to wave length and angular orientation
stimuli on the first generalization test (Group 1),
341
function of wave length, with angular
orientation as the parameter, and as
a function of angular orientation,
with wave length as the parameter.
It is evident that generalization on
the two tests is highly similar, differ-
ing only in the overall response level.
Responses on the two tests were
pooled in analyses of the results.
Generalization decrement occurred
to stimuli varied in either dimension;
analysis of variance indicated that
both wave length and angular orien-
tation effects are highly significant
(see Table 2). Further, there is an
asymmetry in wave-length generali-
zation ; significantly more responses
were given to 580 m/j. than to 520
m/i, t (9) = 7.90, p < .001. Angular
orientation generalization, on the
other hand, was more nearly sym-
metrical ; among the 10 5s, there was
no consistent tendency to generalize
more to one value of angular orienta-
tion than to the other.
In order to compare the amount of
generalization to stimuli varied in one
and in two dimensions, differences
between mean responses to these two
classes of stimuli were evaluated by a
t test for correlated scores. The
40° 90° 140*
ANGULAR ORIENTATION - DEGREES
342 CHARLES M. BUTTER

SECOND TEST
100

BO-\

<n
60-
£50 Mu.

40-

20-

0°-550 M)L

520 550 5800' 40° 90° 140°

WAVE LENGTH - MJJ. ANGULAR ORIENTATION-DEGREES

FIG. 2. Mean total responses to wave length and angular orientation

stimuli on the second generalization test (Group 1).

results of this test showed significantly parallel, but rather interact, as indi-
less generalization to stimuli varied in cated by the significant Wave Length
two dimensions than to stimuli varied X Angular Orientation interaction
in one dimension, i (9) =6.73, p<.001. (see Table 2). Furthermore, it ap-
The results may be further ex- pears from the graphs depicting the
amined in order to determine whether results that this interaction occurs in
stimuli on the wave-length and angu- such a way that the gradients are
lar orientation dimensions exert in- multiples of each other, i.e., the form
dependent or interacting effects on of the gradients suggests that relative
generalization. If the effects of these generalization along one dimension
stimuli are independent, then the is equal at different levels of the
family of gradients along one dimen- second dimension. Thus, for exam-
sion should be parallel. It appears, ple, if Rt = responses to the training
however, that the gradients are not stimulus, Ra = responses to a stimu-
lus varied only in angular orientation,
TABLE 2
Rw = responses to a stimulus varied
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TOTAL RESPONSES only in wave length, and Raw = re-
ON BOTH TESTS TO WAVE LENGTH
AND ANGULAR ORIENTATION sponses to a stimulus varied in both
STIMULI: GROUP 1 angular orientation and wave length,
then:
Source if MS F Ra Rwa
Total
Wave length (W)
89
1 109,751.5 37.75***
Rt Rw
Angular orientation (A) 2 148,678.5 12.49** and
W XA 4 13,058.6 5.79*
5s in groups 9 Ra X Rw
W XSs 18 2,899.2 Rwa =
A X5s 18 11,902.6 Rt
W X A X 5s 36 2,257.1
Dividing both sides of the equation
Note.—Since there were repeated observations on
5s, the significance levels of F ratios were tested by by Rt:
means of the conservative procedure suggested by
Geisser and Greenhouse (1958).
* p < .05. Rwa = Ra X Rw
**t <-01.
*** p < .001, Rt: Rt X Rt
 STIMULUS GENERALIZATION IN PIGEONS 343

TABLE 3 are shown in Table 3. It is evident

MEAN RESPONSES OBTAINED AND PREDICTED that predicted responses closely ap-
BY THE MULTIPLICATIVE RULE : GROUP 1 proximate obtained responses; the
overall mean error of prediction was
Mean
Obtained
Mean
Predicted PVE»
7.9%. Included in the same table
Stimulus
Responses Responses are values of PVE (percent variance
580 mp, 40° 84.1 91.6 .92 explained by predicted responses);
580 mit, 140° 89.5 86.5 .93 the high values of this statistic indi-
520 m», 40° 46.4 44.4 .90 cate that responses of individual 5s
520 nip, 140° 49.3 41.9 .92
were predicted with a high degree of
a
accuracy.
Proportion of Variance Explained = 1 ~-
Group 2.—The results of generali-
where p = predicted responses and o = obtained re-
sponses (Levine, 19S9). zation testing, shown in Fig. 3 and 4,
are similar to those of Group 1.
According to the last equation, rela- Analysis of variance indicates that
tive generalization to the stimulus both wave length and angular orien-
varied in two dimensions equals the tation effects were significant (see
product of the values of relative Table 4). Also, wave-length generali-
generalization to the two stimuli each zation was markedly asymmetrical,
of which is varied in a single dimension. i.e., significantly more responses were
Mean responses to stimuli varied given to 560 m/i than to 540 m/j,,
in two dimensions and responses pre- I (26) = 7.94, p < .001. As in the
dicted by this "multiplicative rule" previous experiment no consistent

FIRST TEST

150-

ffi
K.

540 550 560 30° 60* 90° 120' 150*

WAVE LENGTH-Mu ANGULAR ORIENTATION-DEGREES

FIG. 3. Mean total responses to wave length and angular orientation stimuli
on the first generalization test (Group 2),
344 CHARLES M. BUTTER

SECOND TEST

550 M«
24-

16-

550 560 570 30« 60° 90° !»•

WAVE LENGTH-MO ANGULAR ORIENTATION-DEGREES

FIG. 4. Mean total responses to wave length and angular orientation stimuli
on the second generalization test (Group 2).

asymmetries were found in angular Table 5. Prediction accuracy is

orientation generalization. Further, similar to that found previously;
significant differences were again the mean error of prediction was 9.7%.
found between mean responses to However, it is evident that the ma-
stimuli varied in one and in two di- jority of values of PVE are markedly
mensions ; fewer responses were given lower than those found in the results
to stimuli varied in two dimensions
than to stimuli varied in one dimen- TABLE 4
sion, t (26) = 7.54, p < .001. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TOTAL RESPONSES
Finally, a significant Wave Length ON BOTH TESTS TO WAVE LENGTH
AND ANGULAR ORIENTATION
X Angular Orientation interaction re- STIMULI : GROUP 2
sults from the tendency for gradients
along one dimension to broaden at Source df MS P
successive levels of the second di- Total .5.19
mension (see Table 4), although in- Wave length (W)
Angular orientation (A)
3
4
35,477.4 9.35**
222,794.4 31.32***
spection of Fig. 3 and 4 reveals that Ss in groups 26
W XA 12 3,403.4 3.27**
this tendency is not entirely con- W XSs 7X 3,792.8
A XSs 104 7,114.3
sistent. The multiplicative rule de- W X A X 5s 312 1,039.7
scribed previously was used to predict
responses to stimuli varied in two Note.—'The conservative procedure of Geisser and
Greenhouse (1958) was used in evaluating the sig-
dimensions, and mean obtained and nificance of the F ratios.
**p <.01.
predicted responses are shown in ***f <,OQ1,
 STIMULUS GENERALIZATION IN PIGEONS 345

TABLE 5 both groups. This finding is not con-

MEAN RESPONSES OBTAINED AND PREDICTED sistent with the view that multidimen-
BY THE MULTIPLICATIVE RULE : GROUP 2 sional generalization is the result of the
algebraic summation of generalization
Mean Mean decrements to all discriminable stimulus
Stimulus Obtained Predicted PVE changes. The form of the generalization
Responses Responses
gradients obtained in Group 1 suggested,
540 mp, 30° 22.1 23.5 .46 rather, that relative generalization to a
540 mn, 60° 57.6 68.1 .30 stimulus varied in two dimensions equals
540 HIM, 120° 73.3 67.6 .39 the product of the values of relative
540 m/j, 150° 21.5 21.7 .44
560 m/i, 30° 38.5 36.3 .56 generalization to stimuli varied in a
560 m/i, 60° 87.2 104.9 .52 single dimension alone. In perceptual
560 mn, 120° 91.9 104.1 .74 terms, this multiplicative rule states that
560 mn, 150° 28.9 33.4 .88
570 niM, 30° 30.5 27.9 .90 the similarity between stimuli differing
570 HIM, 60° 89.3 80.7 .16 in several dimensions is a joint function
570 HIM, 120° 76.0 80.1 .52 of the perceived similarity between
570 m M> 150° 27.2 25.7 .37 stimuli within each of the relevant di-
mensions. The multiplicative rule pre-
dicted mean responses and responses of
of Group 1, reflecting the poorer individual 5s in Group 1 with a high
prediction of individual Ss' responses. degree of success. However, predictions
of individual Ss' responses in Group 2
DISCUSSION were much less accurate, a finding which
may be accounted for by the fact that
The results of this study indicate that each stimulus was presented less fre-
the operant situation described by Gutt- quently to these 5s than to those in
man and Kalish (1956) in their study of Group 2, thereby tending to reduce re-
stimulus generalization can also be em- liability of measurement. It is also
ployed to obtain gradients along two possible that response interactions be-
dimensions from individual 5s. More- tween stimulus presentations contributed
over, these gradients are similar to those variability to the results and thus to
generated in tests in which stimuli are predictions of responses. The lower ac-
varied only in a single dimension. Thus, curacy of predictions of the Group 2 data
in both, the wave-length gradients may also be due, at least in part, to lack
around 550 m/i were asymmetrical in of complete orthogonality of the dimen-
the same direction as those reported in sions, i.e., probabilities of response to
previous studies (Blough, 1961; Gutt- each aspect of the stimulus may not be
man & Kalish, 1956; Hanson, 1959), independent. However, since no con-
while angular orientation gradients were stant errors of prediction were found in
more symmetrical, resembling those de- mean responses or in responses of indi-
scribed earlier for this dimension (Butter vidual 5s, it appears unlikely that depar-
& Guttman, 1957). ture from orthogonality had any sig-
The results of both groups demon- nificant effect on the results. Finally,
strate that generalization to stimuli one should recognize the possibility that
varied in two dimensions is less than multidimensional generalization cannot
generalization to stimuli varied in either be described by any simple quantitative
dimension alone. This finding is con-
rule that is applicable to a variety of
sistent with previous ones (Fink &
Patton, 1953; White, 1958) and suggests stimulus dimensions and experimental
that perceptual similarity can be altered conditions. Future studies using other
more readily by multidimensional than dimensions and methods of testing may
by unidimensional stimulus changes. provide more information about the
A significant interaction between di- manner in which multidimensional gen-
mensions was found in the results of eralization occurs.
346 CHARLES M. BUTTER
REFERENCES
BLOUGH, D. S. The shape of some wave-
length generalization gradients. /. exp.
Anal. Behav., 1961, 4, 31-40.
BUTTER, C. M., & GUTTMAN, N. Stimulus
generalization and discrimination along the
dimension of angular orientation. Amer.
Psychologist, 1957, 12, 449. (Abstract)
FINK, J. B., & PATTON, R. M. Decrement of
a learned drinking response accompanying
changes in several stimulus characteristics.
J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1953, 46, 23-27.
GEISSER, S., & GREENHOUSE, S. W. An
extension of Box's results on the use of the
F distribution in multivariate analysis.
Ann. math. Statist., 1958, 29, 885-891.
GUTTMAN, N. The pigeon and the spectrum
and other perplexities. Psychol. Rep.,
1956, 2, 449-460.
GUTTMAN, N., & KALISH, H. I. Discrimin-
ability and stimulus generalization. /. exp.
Psychol., 1956, SI, 79-88.
HANSON, H. M. Effects of discrimination
training on stimulus generalization. J. exp.
Psychol., 1959, 58, 321-334.
LEVINE, M. A model of hypothesis behavior
in discrimination learning set. Psychol.
Rev., 1959, 66, 353-366.
WHITE, S. W. Generalization of an in-
strumental response with variations in two
attributes of the CS. /. exp. Psychol.,
1958, 56, 339-343.
(Received May 14, 1962)