Relating in the Wild: Toward an Analysis of Equivalence Relations Under More Naturalistic Conditions
Lab-built equivalence may not travel—probe untrained relations in real-world noise before claiming true mastery.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Marin et al. (2024) wrote a think-piece. They asked: do stimulus equivalence classes that bloom in quiet labs survive noisy real life?
The team did not run new lab trials. They reviewed past work and flagged gaps between tight experiments and messy homes, stores, and streets.
What they found
The paper claims we cannot trust that lab-built equivalence equals real-world understanding. Untrained matches may vanish once distractions pile up.
In short, perfect lab scores may fool us. Kids might link A-B and B-C on a tablet yet fail to treat real objects the same way in a busy room.
How this fits with other research
Belisle et al. (2020) mapped equivalence like physics inside sealed lab tasks. Marin et al. (2024) say those clean maps may not guide us outside.
Ayres-Pereira et al. (2018) showed preschoolers who learned photo equivalence sometimes failed with real 3-D objects. Marin et al. extend this worry to all lab equivalence claims.
Gomes et al. (2023) trained adults to link two full equivalence networks under tight cues. Marin et al. hint such fancy lab feats may collapse in the wild.
Regaço et al. (2025) urge merging equivalence, RFT, and naming theories. Marin et al. answer: merge if you wish, but first test any merged model in natural settings.
Why it matters
If you teach sight-word equivalence on an iPad, probe the same relations at the grocery store. Take data in hallways, cafeterias, and cars. If the child hesitates, add teaching loops in those noisy spots. Stop claiming mastery until performance holds where it truly matters.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run five probe trials of your latest equivalence set in the noisiest spot of the school; note any drops and reteach there.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Since the first proposal 50 years ago, numerous experiments have documented how arbitrarily related stimuli can become functionally interchangeable. These studies have sought to understand how different variables can moderate the probability of equivalence class formation. However, the well-established evidence regarding this phenomenon in experimental settings does not necessarily guarantee an understanding about how equivalence relations are produced in natural settings. In typical experiments, experimenters control critical variables to produce equivalence relations, such as, the requirement of proficiency with baseline relations, the number of opportunities to relate two or more stimuli, the efforts to promote stimulus control topography coherent with the experimenter-defined relations, etc. All these variables, however, are not controlled in our daily lives. The present article elucidates how some differences between experimental and natural settings can likely affect how the phenomenon of equivalence relations can occur in noncontrolled, naturalistic environments. Furthermore, we suggest new areas of research to promote the generalization of basic experimental data to contingencies in our daily lives.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2024 · doi:10.1007/s40614-024-00420-6