Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: A relational framing model of complex human functioning.
Delayed matching-to-sample can give both children and adults the untrained ability to solve analogy problems.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fabbretti et al. (1997) taught adults and kids to match pictures in a computer game. They used delayed matching-to-sample so the sample vanished before choices appeared.
After basic classes formed, they tested if people could match equivalence to equivalence. Think: 'If A goes with B, and C goes with D, does A-C match B-D?'
What they found
Every person built equivalence-equivalence relations. They could pick the analogy pairs without extra teaching.
They also handled nonequivalence-nonequivalence trials. Contextual cues told them when to pick 'same' or 'different' analogies, and they followed those cues.
How this fits with other research
Barnes-Holmes et al. (2005) later showed the brain treats these relations like real meaning. ERP waves looked like classic semantic priming, giving neural proof that equivalence classes feel like words that go together.
Magiati et al. (2001) took the same logic to three autistic children. A short tact→category tact→match chain let them talk about emotions in metaphors they were never directly taught, showing the method works outside the lab with ASD learners.
Perez et al. (2021) pushed contextual control further. They used background colors to flip the function of already-made classes from reward to extinction, proving the cue itself can travel through equivalence networks.
Why it matters
You now have a cheap, fast way to build analogical reasoning. Run delayed matching-to-sample, test equivalence-equivalence, then add color or shape cues to signal when 'same' or 'opposite' answers pay off. The 1997 recipe still works for kids and adults, and later papers show it holds for autistic learners, ERP labs, and function-shift studies. Try it next time you need to teach higher-order problem solving without chaining dozens of direct trials.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick four pictures, teach two 3-member equivalence classes with delayed MTS, then test if learner can match A-C to B-D without prompting.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The current study aimed to develop a behavior-analytic model of analogical reasoning. In Experiments 1 and 2 subjects (adults and children) were trained and tested for the formation of four, three-member equivalence relations using a delayed matching-to-sample procedure. All subjects (Experiments 1 and 2) were exposed to tests that examined relations between equivalence and non-equivalence relations. For example, on an equivalence-equivalence relation test, the complex sample B1/C1 and the two complex comparisons B3/C3 and B3/C4 were used, and on a nonequivalence-nonequivalence relation test the complex sample B1/C2 was presented with the same two comparisons. All subjects consistently related equivalence relations to equivalence relations and nonequivalence relations to nonequivalence relations (e.g., picked B3/C3 in the presence of B1/C1 and picked B3/C4 in the presence of B1/C2). In Experiment 3, the equivalence responding, the equivalence-equivalence responding, and the nonequivalence-nonequivalence responding was successfully brought under contextual control. Finally, it was shown that the contextual cues could function successfully as comparisons, and the complex samples and comparisons could function successfully as contextual cues and samples, respectively. These data extend the equivalence paradigm and contribute to a behaviour-analytic interpretation of analogical reasoning and complex human functioning, in general.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 1997 · doi:10.1007/BF03392916