An overview of key papers preceding Sidman equivalence

Arntzen et al. (2021) wrote a story-style review. They traced 31 key papers that came before Sidman’s 1982 equivalence model.

The authors hunted for early work on stimulus control, matching-to-sample, and emergent relations. They lined the papers up in time order to show how ideas grew.

The review shows that equivalence did not pop up in 1982. Labs had already seen reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity in pigeons, college students, and kids.

Each paper added a brick: new controls, new error patterns, new training shapes. Together they let Sidman build his full equivalence frame.

Alonso-Alvarez (2023) updates the tale. They looked at Pavlovian accounts and said, "Those can’t explain equivalence." This keeps the operant story alive.

Miranda-Linné et al. (1992) warned that the negative stimulus can sneakily control choices. Their tip sits inside the older papers the review covers.

Lerman et al. (1995) showed adults keep transitivity even after baseline reversals, while kids’ classes fall apart. These mixed results are part of the early pile that led to Sidman.

Austin et al. (2015) moved the same logic into autism intervention. Two children learned A-B and B-C, then passed untrained A-C without extra trials.

If you run equivalence lessons, read this map first. You will see why we probe symmetry, why we watch for negative-stimulus control, and why kids may need firmer baselines. Use the history to pick sturdy procedures instead of reinventing them.