In equivalence classes, stimulus relatedness is an inverse function of the nodal number for the same type of derived relation. Also, transitive relations are preferred to equivalence relations when the nodal number is held constant. The current study evaluated the combined effects of nodal number and relational type on relatedness of stimuli within equivalence classes. After eight college students formed two 7-node, 9-member equivalence classes, participants were presented with trials during within-class relational preference tests that pitted 1-node equivalence relations against 1- to 5-node transitive relations. Consistent with prior research, 1-node transitive relations were always preferred to 1-node equivalence relations. For the six participants who formed classes rapidly, preference for the 1-node equivalence relation increased as a direct function of increases in the number of nodes in the competing transitive relation. In addition, the 1-node equivalence relation was equally preferred to an approximately 2-node transitive relation. Because equivalence classes remained intact after preference testing, performances documented the coexistence of equal and differential relatedness of class members. Two participants formed the classes on a delayed basis and produced inverted U-shaped preference functions instead of monotonic preference functions. Because the preference functions differed in terms of speed of emergence, the same nominal equivalence classes were not functionally equivalent to each other with regard to stimulus relatedness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Barnes, D., Browne, M., Smeets, P., & Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three- to six-year-old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395151.
Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1993.59-61.
Buffington, D. M., Fields, L., & Adams, B. J. (1997). Enhancing equivalence class formation by pretraining of other equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 47, 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395213.
de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.50-1.
de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Stimulus class formation and functional equivalence in moderately retarded individuals’ conditional discrimination. Behavioural Processes, 17, 167–175.
Doran, E., & Fields, L. (2012). All stimuli are equal, but some are more equal than others: Measuring relational preferences within an equivalence class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2012.98-243.
Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E. M., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331.
Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: The transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254.
Fields, L. (2015). Stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes, perceptual categories, and semantic memory networks. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2015.1084713.
Fields, L., Adams, B. J., & Verhave, T. (1989, May). Relative strength of symmetrical, transitive and equivalence relations after equivalence classes are fully formed. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee, WI.
Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2012.97-163.
Fields, L., Landon-Jimenez, D. V., Buffington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995). Maintained nodal distance effects after equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1995.64-129.
Fields, L., & Moss, P. (2007). Effects of contingency and nodal structure on stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: History and integration. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 141–160.
Fields, L., Reeve, K. F., Rosen, D., Varelas, A., Adams, B. J., Belanich, J., & Hobbie, S. A. (1997). Using the simultaneous protocol to study equivalence class formation: The facilitating effects of nodal number and size of previously established equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.67-367.
Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.48-317.
Fields, L., & Watanabe-Rose, M. (2008). Nodal structure and the partitioning of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008-89-359.
Imam, A. A. (2001). Speed contingencies, number of stimulus presentations, and the nodality effect in equivalence class information. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-265.
Mensah, J., & Arntzen, E. (2016). Effects of meaningful stimuli contained in different numbers of classes on equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 67, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0215-y.
Moss-Lourenco, P., & Fields, L. (2011). Nodal structure and stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: Post-class formation preference tests. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.95-343.
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. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.49-95.
Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. match-to-sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Caldwell University Institutional Research Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of Interest Statement
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the first author’s Doctor of Philosophy degree in applied behavior analysis from Caldwell University under the supervision of the third author.
About this article
Cite this article
Albright, L.K., Fields, L., Reeve, K.F. et al. Relatedness of Equivalence Class Members: Combined Effects of Nodality and Relational Type. Psychol Rec 69, 277–289 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00329-6
- Nodal distance
- Relational type
- Stimulus equivalence
- Within-class preference tests
- Equal and differential relatedness
- Joint control