Three experiments evaluated whether the apparent reflexivity effect reported by Sweeney and Urcuioli (2010) for pigeons might, in fact, be transitivity. In Experiment 1, pigeons learned symmetrically reinforced hue-form (A-B) and form-hue (B-A) successive matching. Those also trained on form-form (B-B) matching responded more to hue comparisons that matched their preceding samples on subsequent hue-hue (A-A) probe trials. By contrast, most pigeons trained on just A-B and B-A matching did not show this effect; but some did--a finding consistent with transitivity. Experiment 2 showed that the latter pigeons also responded more to form comparisons that matched their preceding samples on form-form (B-B) probe trials. Experiment 3 tested the prediction that hue-hue matching versus hue-hue oddity, respectively, should emerge after symmetrically versus asymmetrically reinforced arbitrary matching relations if those relations are truly transitive. For the few pigeons showing an emergent effect, comparison response rates were higher when a probe-trial comparison matched its preceding sample independently of the baseline contingencies. These results indicate neither a reflexivity nor a transitivity effect but, rather, a possible identity bias.

Pigeons trained on successive AB symbolic matching show emergent BA antisymmetry if they are also trained on successive AA oddity and BB identity (Urcuioli, 2008, Experiment 4). In other words, when tested on BA probe trials following training, they respond more to the comparisons on the reverse of the nonreinforced AB baseline trials than on the reverse of the reinforced AB baseline trials (the opposite of an associative symmetry pattern). The present experiment replicated this finding. In addition, it showed that antisymmetry also emerged after baseline training on successive AB symbolic matching, AA identity, and BB oddity, consistent with the prediction from Urcuioli's (2008) theory of pigeons' stimulus-class formation. Together, these results provide further empirical support for that theory including the proposition that the functional stimuli in pigeons' successive matching consist of the nominal stimuli plus their ordinal positions within a trial.

Pigeons demonstrate associative symmetry after successive matching training on one arbitrary and two identity relations (e.g., Urcuioli, 2008). Here, we tested whether identity matching training is necessary for this emergent effect. In Experiment 1, one group of pigeons (Dual Oddity) learned hue–form arbitrary matching and two oddity relations which shared sample and comparison elements with the arbitrary relations. A second (Control) group learned the same hue–form matching task and a second (form–hue) arbitrary task which, together with hue oddity, shared only the samples with the hue–form relations. On subsequent symmetry probe trials, four Dual Oddity pigeons exhibited higher probe-trial response rates on the reverse of the positive than negative hue–form baseline trials, demonstrating associative symmetry. None of the Control pigeons, on the other hand, exhibited associative symmetry. Experiment 2 showed that subsequently changing one of the two oddity baseline relations to identity matching in the Dual Oddity group yielded antisymmetry in three of five pigeons. These results are consistent with predictions derived from Urcuioli’s (2008) theory of pigeons’ stimulus class formation and demonstrate that identity training is not necessary for associative symmetry to emerge after arbitrary matching training in pigeons.

Pigeons typically do not show evidence for symmetry in two-alternative matching-to-sample but do demonstrate this emergent relation in successive (go/no-go) matching-to-sample. Because the sample and comparison stimuli are presented in the same spatial location (viz., on one key) during successive matching training and testing, this may be one reason why pigeons pass tests for symmetry in this paradigm. To evaluate this, one group of pigeons received successive matching training with hue-sample stimuli on the center key and form-comparison stimuli on the left key of a three-key chamber. A control group was trained with all stimuli appearing on the same (left) key. Training also involved concurrent hue- and form-identity successive matching with the same spatial location arrangement as each group’s respective hue–form task. Later, nonreinforced form–hue (symmetry) probes structured in the same way as the baseline trials were given. Of the six birds in each group, five trained with different locations and two trained with constant location responded more to the reverse of baseline positive hue–form combinations than to negative ones in testing. Results confirm the prediction from Urcuioli’s (2008) theory that symmetry should emerge even with varying spatial locations, as long as functional stimuli are held constant.

Pigeons were trained on arbitrary (hue-form) and identity (hue-hue and form-form) successive matching with center-key samples and left-key comparisons. Later, they were tested on form-hue (symmetry) probe trials that were structured either in the different-locations fashion as the baseline trials (viz., center-key samples and left-key comparisons) or with a constant location by using center-key samples and center-key comparisons. Three of four pigeons showed symmetry when the probe-trial samples and comparisons appeared in center- and left-key spatial locations, respectively, but none did when both appeared in one (center-key) location. Subsequently, pigeons previously tested with center-key samples and left-key comparisons were tested with those form-hue stimuli shown in the same (center-key) location, and vice versa for the other pigeons. None of the former pigeons showed symmetry on the second test even if they had on the first test. By contrast, two of three pigeons that had not shown symmetry with single-location samples and comparisons did so when those stimuli appeared in different (center- vs. left-key) locations. Taken together, these results show that symmetrical relations between the same, nominal matching stimuli depend on where those stimuli appear in testing vis-à-vis in training and, more generally, confirm that spatial location is part of the functional matching stimuli.