Abstract
Four experiments are described that employed a form of go/no go procedure that we refer to as a precursor to the Relational Evaluation Procedure (pREP). The pREP was used to train and test for equivalence responding, and the results of this procedure were compared with the results achieved using a standard matching-to-sample procedure. Each trial in the pREP involved a sample stimulus and either a positive or negative comparison stimulus being presented successively on a computer screen, followed by a 5-sec response interval. Subjects were required to press the space bar of a computer keyboard on sample-positive comparison trials and to not press the space bar on sample-negative comparison trials. Using either the pREP or a matching-to-sample procedure 20 subjects were trained in the following four tasks, A1 → B1, A2 → B2, B1 → C1, B2 → C2. They were then tested for four symmetrical relations (B1 → A1, B2 → A2, C1 → B1, C2 → B2), and two equivalence relations (C1 → A1 and C2 → A2), using both the pREP and matching-to-sample procedures, with the order of presentation of the two types of test varied across experiments. The results of the four experiments reported here demonstrate that the pREP is less effective than the matching-to-sample procedure in generating equivalence responding. However, performance on the pREP tests improved when the subjects had prior exposure to matching-to-sample training and/or testing. This finding suggests that further study of the interactions between these two procedures, combined with suggested refinements to the pREP itself, may contribute to a fuller understanding of those variables most relevant to producing equivalence responding.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
CULLINAN, V. A., BARNES, D., HAMPSON, P. J., & LYDDY, F. (1994). A transfer of explicitly and nonexplicitly trained sequence responses through equivalence relations: An experimental demonstration and connectionist model. The Psychological Record, 44, 559–585.
D’AMATO, M. R., & COLOMBO, M. (1985). Auditory matching-to-sample in monkeys (Cebus apel/a). Animal Learning and Behavior, 13, 375–382.
DUBE, W. v., & Mcilvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent behavior and stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.
DYMOND, S., & BARNES, D. (1994). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251–267.
FIELDS, L., ADAMS, B. J., NEWMAN, S., & VERHAVE, T. (1992). Interactions among emergent relations during equivalence class formation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45B, 125–138.
HAYES, S. C., & BARNES, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 235–244.
LEADER, G., BARNES, D., & SMEETS, P. M. (1996). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 46, 685–706.
MARKHAM, M. R., & Dougher, M. J. (1993). Compound stimuli in emergent stimulus relations: Extending the scope of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 529–542.
REEVE, K. F., FIELDS, L., VARELAS, A., ROSEN, D., BELANICH, J., & HOBBIE, S. (1996) Equivalence class formation using a stimuluspairing/yes-no procedure. Paper presented during the symposium “Generalization of emergent relations and equivalence class formation: Different perspectives,” at the Association for Behavior Analysis, 22nd Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, USA.
SAUNDERS, R. R., WACHTER, J., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115.
SAUNDERS, K. J., SAUNDERS, R. R., WILLIAMS, D. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1993). An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: Extending the analysis of equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 725–744.
SCHENK, J. J. (1993). Emergent conditional discrimination in children: Matching to compound stimuli. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B (4), 345–365.
SMEETS, P. M., Schenk, J. J., & Barnes, D. (1995). Establishing arbitrary stimulus classes via identity matching training and nonreinforced matching with complex stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 311–328.
SMEETS, P. M., & STRIEFEL, S. (1994). Matching to complex stimuli under nonreinforced conditions: Errorless transfer from identity to arbitrary matching tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47B (1), 39–62.
STROMER, R., Mcilvane, W. J., & Serna, R. W. (1993). Complex stimulus control and equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 585–598.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was conducted as part of Veronica Cullinan’s doctoral research program under the supervision of Dermot Barnes.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cullinan, V.A., Barnes, D. & Smeets, P.M. A Precursor to the Relational Evaluation Procedure: Analyzing Stimulus Equivalence. Psychol Rec 48, 121–145 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395262
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395262