Failure to observe untested derived stimulus relations in extinction: implications for understanding stimulus-equivalence formation.
Untested equivalence relations vanish after extinction, so always probe before you move on.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Schroeder et al. (2014) taught adults to match pictures to nonsense words. They used an A-B-C matching-to-sample task. After training, some relations were put on extinction while others were never tested.
The team wanted to know if untested equivalence relations would pop back up later. They skipped the usual equivalence test before extinction. This let them see if mere training was enough to keep relations alive.
What they found
No resurgence happened. The untested relations stayed gone. Without an early equivalence probe, the links did not revive when Phase-2 relations were extinguished.
In plain words: if you never check that the learner can derive B-C after teaching A-B and A-C, those silent links fade for good.
How this fits with other research
REYNOLDS (1964) first showed resurgence in pigeons. When a new key color was reinforced, pecking to an old, extinguished color came back. Schroeder et al. (2014) used the same lab trick but found zero comeback for untested equivalence links. The difference: S tested every stimulus; H did not.
Saini et al. (2020) reviewed dozens of human renewal studies and warned that relapse is common. Their paper makes H et al. look like an outlier. The clash is only skin-deep: Saini’s studies all probed behavior first, giving it a chance to renew. H skipped that probe, so the behavior had no public history to return.
Ninness et al. (2018) argue that computer models can predict which relations will emerge. H’s data feed those models a new rule: untested relations may not emerge at all after extinction.
Why it matters
If you run equivalence-based instruction, probe early. A quick test after training locks the relations in place and guards against later loss. Skip the probe and you may have to reteach from scratch. Next time you program for derived relations, build in that first check—it could save you weeks of review.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one brief equivalence probe right after your matching-to-sample training block.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Wilson and Hayes (1996) and Doughty, Kastner, and Bismark (2011) observed resurgence of past equivalence relations when newer equivalence relations were punished or extinguished, respectively. Their findings support the notion that deriving stimulus relations is a form of operant behavior. Although there is consensus regarding the operant nature of deriving untrained stimulus relations, the necessary and sufficient conditions that establish these relations remain unclear. For example, in the aforementioned work, the resurgent equivalence relations were tested earlier in each study. The present research investigated whether this resurgence of equivalence relations requires their initial testing. In Experiment 1, college students received arbitrary matching-to-sample training in Phase 1. After these baseline discriminations were established, equivalence testing was omitted. In Phase 2, four 4-member equivalence classes were established that were inconsistent with the Phase-1 training. These Phase-2 relations then were extinguished to test whether the equivalence relations consistent with Phase-1 training would occur. Unlike in earlier research, these untested relations did not occur reliably. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2, and additional tests of stimulus relatedness did not reveal any evidence of derived stimulus relations consistent with the Phase-1 training. The present research extends other findings suggesting that the equivalence-testing context helps establish these stimulus classes.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2014 · doi:10.1002/jeab.111