The go/no‐go successive matching task and the emergence of arbitrary relational responding: A review
Go/no-go successive matching gives you human symmetry almost 9 times out of 10, but animals need tighter procedures and still lag on transitivity.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ayres‐Pereira et al. (2025) pooled every published paper that used the go/no-go successive matching task. They asked: how often do humans and non-humans show symmetry, transitivity, and full equivalence after this procedure?
The team coded outcomes from dozens of single-case experiments. Most subjects were neurotypical adults, but pigeons, rats, and a few children were also in the mix.
What they found
Across studies, 87.5 % of human participants showed symmetry after GNG training. Full equivalence emerged about 59 % of the time. Non-human scores were lower and jumpier—some birds passed symmetry, others did not, and almost no animals had transitivity data reported.
In short, GNG matching is a reliable symmetry maker for people, but a shakier bet for animals.
How this fits with other research
Bailey (2008) and Campos et al. (2014) fit the pattern: pigeons that got successive GNG did show symmetry, while birds trained with standard two-choice matching often failed. The review now shows this is not a fluke—successive format really is the key for non-humans.
Modenesi et al. (2026) extend the story to college students using compound stimuli. Their subjects passed derived asymmetric and transitive tests without any non-arbitrary prep. The review’s human numbers back up that positive finding.
Chand et al. (2022) and the 1990s nodality papers (L et al., 1990; L et al., 1995) used match-to-sample instead of GNG. They still land in the same ball-park: humans form equivalence, but one-node relations pop out before two-node ones. The review confirms the nodality effect holds even when you switch the training format to GNG.
Why it matters
If you run equivalence training, GNG matching is a quick road to symmetry for most human learners. For animals, stick to successive trials and keep your hopes modest—transitivity data are scarce. Standardize your mastery criterion (see Fienup et al., 2017) and watch nodal distance: train short chains first, then add nodes. Next session, try a short GNG symmetry probe after only AB training; you may save hours of extra trials.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 12-trial GNG symmetry probe right after your AB training block—if the learner passes, skip direct BC training and move to the next class.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Go/no-go successive matching (GNG-matching) tasks are one of several procedures used to establish conditional discriminations. This study presents a systematic review aimed at comparing procedures and outcomes of empirical studies using GNG-matching tasks for the emergence of symmetry, transitive, and global equivalence relations in humans and non-humans. A total of 22 articles were analyzed-nine with nonhumans and thirteen with humans. Procedural variables, including trial parameters, stimulus characteristics, and training and testing conditions, were documented alongside the number of participants meeting baseline, symmetry, and global equivalence criteria per experiment. Results showed that 87.5% of human participants demonstrated symmetry, while 58.81% passed global equivalence tests. Among nonhumans, 41.22% demonstrated symmetry, while transitivity was minimally explored, with a 34.83% success rate. A meta-analysis revealed correlations between trial structure, training/testing parameters, and the immediate emergence of symmetry relations in humans. Variability in outcomes across species may stem from differences in prerequisite skills or procedural inconsistencies. Standardizing parameters is essential to distinguish phylogenetic from procedural influences, as current cross-species inconsistencies confound results. These findings provide a framework for refining experimental methods, identifying research gaps, and informing discussions on the critical conditions for equivalence-class formation.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2025 · doi:10.1002/jeab.70049