Matching Derived Functionally-Same Stimulus Relations: Equivalence-Equivalence and Classical Analogies

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that, after being trained on A-B and A-C matching tasks, subjects match not only functionally-same Band C stimuli (stimulus equivalence), but also BC compounds with sameclass elements and BC compounds with different-class elements (equivalence-equivalence) . Similar performances are required in classical analogies (a : b :: c : d). Therefore, some researchers have argued that equivalence-equivalence can serve as a behavior analytic model for analogical reasoning. Recent studies, however, have shown that compounds with same-class elements and different-class elements have different discriminative (S+, S-) properties. Hence, matching of same discriminative functions may have occurred. The present study aimed to design an equivalence-equivalence test in which the designated correct performances cannot be attributed to a process other than matching functionally-same relations. In Experiment 1 , subjects were trained to relate X and Y stimuli to colors and X and l stimuli to forms. After equivalence was assessed (Y-Xl) , the subjects received an equivalence-equivalence test in which only compounds with same-class elements were used: an XY or Xl compound as sample and an XY and Xl compound as comparisons (e.g., X1Y1-X2Y2IX2Z2). All subjects passed the equivalenceequivalence test. However, as reported by 1 subject, and was later demonstrated in Experiment 2, these equivalence-equivalence tasks could be solved by matching functionally-same stimuli (e.g., Y1-color-Y2, hence Y1-Y2). Experiment 3 demonstrated that this problem also exists in classical analogy tasks. When given the analogy tasks used by Goswami and Brown (1990) , all subjects selected the correct dterm option on the basis of the b-term alone (equivalence) . In Experiment 4, the equivalence-equivalence test was further modified to permit differentiation of matching functionally-same relations from matching functionally-same stimuli. All 5 subjects readily matched functionally-same equivalence relations, thus evidenced equivalenceequivalence or analogical reasoning.Correspondence should be sent to Paul M. Smeets,

The effects of listener training on the development of analogical reasoning

“…Using these procedures, Barnes et al () showed that all participants, including two children (ages 9 and 12) passed analogy tests after completing equivalence training and testing. Additional studies replicated these findings using traditional four‐term analogies (Carpentier, Smeets, & Barnes‐Holmes, ; Carpentier, Smeets, Barnes‐Holmes & Stewart, ), cross‐domain analogies in which analogy tests included stimuli trained independently from one another (Ruiz & Luciano, ), and classes with shared formal similarities (Stewart, Barnes‐Holmes, Roche & Smeets, ; ).…”

The fruits of a functional approach for psychological science

“…Sternberg & Rifkin, ). Results also indicated that apparently successful analogical responding by children younger than five might be based on processes other than matching functionally similar relations (Carpentier et al, ). These studies are noteworthy for several reasons.…”

Relating Derived Relations as a Model of Analogical Reasoning: Reaction Times and Event-Related Potentials

“…In conceptualizing analogy in terms of relating derived relations, RFT has generated a growing body of empirical research into various aspects of analogical reasoning in both adults and children (e.g., Carpentier, Smeets, & Barnes-Holmes, 2002Carpentier, Smeets, Barnes-Holmes, & Stewart, 2004;Stewart et al, 2002;see Stewart & BarnesHolmes, 2004, for a review). In all of these studies, however, performance measures always have been restricted to response accuracy (e.g.…”