Abstract
Sidman (1987) and Carrigan and Sidman (1992) have advised against the use of two-choice procedures in studies of emergent matching to sample. They argue that in two-choice, as opposed to multiple-choice, procedures: (1) It is more difficult to make sure that the baseline conditional relations have been established; (2) There is a greater chance that test outcomes are not related to the baseline conditional relations; and (3) The predictions of stimulus equivalence are less clear. In response to the first two arguments, I argue that they refer to technical difficulties that can easily be handled within the two-choice procedure itself. In response to the third argument, I argue that the formulation of Carrigan and Sidman is a new account, that it is inconsistent with the old account of Sidman and Tailby (1982), and that the two-choice procedure goes well with the old account. Further, I argue that there are no strong reasons for adopting the new account, and that the recommendation of using three choices in particular is problematic.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
BOELENS, H., & VAN DEN BROEK, M. (2000). Influencing children’s symmetric responding in matching-to-sample tasks. The Psychological Record, 50, 655–669.
BOELENS, H., VAN DEN BROEK, M., & VAN KLARENBOSCH, T. (2000). Symmetric matching to sample in 2-year-old children. The Psychological Record, 50, 293–304.
CARRIGAN, P. R., Jr., & SIDMAN, M. (1992). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 183–204.
DEVANY, J. M., HAYES, S. C., & NELSON, R. O. (1986). Equivalence-class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257.
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: Elsevier.
DUGDALE, N., & LOWE, C. F. (2000). Testing for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of language-trained chimpanzees. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 5–22.
GAROTTI, M., DE SOUZA, D. G., DE ROSE, J. C., MOLINA, R. C., & GIL, M. S. A. (2000). Reorganization of equivalence classes after reversal of baseline relations. The Psychological Record, 50, 35–48.
HEALY, O., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & SMEETS, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 207–227.
HOGAN, D. E., & ZENTALL, T. R. (1977). Backward associations in the pigeon. American Journal of Psychology, 90, 3–15.
INNIS, A., LANE, S. D., MILLER, E. R., & CRITCHFIELD, T. S. (1998). Stimulus equivalence: Effects of a default-response option on emergence of untrained stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 87–102.
JOHNSON, C, & SIDMAN, M. (1993). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: Control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 333–347.
LAZAR, R. M., DAVIS-LANG, D., & SANCHEZ, L. (1984). The formation of visual stimulus equivalences in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 251–266.
LIPKENS, R., KOP, P. F. M., & MATTHIJS, W. (1988). A test of symmetry and transitivity in the conditional discrimination performances of pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 395–409.
LYNCH, D. C., & GREEN, G. (1991). Development and crossmodal transfer of contextual control of emergent stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 139–154.
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.
PILGRIM, C., & GALIZIO, M. (1990). Relations between baseline contingencies and equivalence probe performances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 213–224.
PILGRIM, C., & GALIZIO, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238.
PILGRIM, C., & GALIZIO, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations, or a correlation of classes? In T R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 173–195). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
SAUNDERS, R. R., DRAKE, K. M., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1999). Equivalence class establishment, expansion, and modification in preschool children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 195–214.
SAUNDERS, R. R., & GREEN, G. (1992). The nonequivalence of behavioral and mathematical equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 227–241.
SAUNDERS, R. R., SAUNDERS, K. J., KIRBY, K. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 145–162.
SERNA, R. W., WILKINSON, K. M., & MCILVANE, W. J. (1998). Blank-comparison assessment of stimulus-stimulus relations in individuals with mental retardation: A methodological note. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 60–74.
SIDMAN, M, (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
SIDMAN, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.
SIDMAN, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93–114). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
SIDMAN, M. (1992). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15–27). Reno, NV: Context Press.
SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
SIDMAN, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.
SIDMAN, M., & CRESSON, O., Jr. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 11, 515-523.
SIDMAN, M., & TAILBY, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.
STROMER, R., & OSBORNE, J. G. (1982). Control of adolescents’ arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 329–348.
WILKINSON, K. M., & MCILVANE, W. J. (1997). Blank comparison analysis of emergent symbolic mapping by young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 115–130.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boelens, H. Studying Stimulus Equivalence: Defense of the Two-Choice Procedure. Psychol Rec 52, 305–314 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395432
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395432