Generalized break equivalence I

The present study attempted to produce generalized break equivalence respon ding with 5 adult subjects. A Generalized Break Equivalence Pattern (GBEP) involved responding in accordance with symmetry and transitivity but not wi th equivalence in new situations. That is, having been trained in two condi tional discriminations, A1-B1/A2-B2 and B1-C1/B2-C2, subjects should produc e the following derived relations; B1-A1, B2-A2, C1-B1, C2-B2, A1-C1, A2-C2 , C1-A2, C2-A1. To achieve this goal, in Phase 1 subjects were exposed to e xplicit training in broken symmetry (A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-A2, B2-A1) with 3 dif ferent stimulus sets (4 stimuli per set). They were then trained in symmetr y (A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-A1, B2-A2) with 3 new sets (4 stimuli per set). In Phas e 2, subjects were exposed to Train Standard Equivalence (i.e., training in the conditional discriminations A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-C1, B2-C2). Then they rec eived Train Break Equivalence (i.e., training in the conditional discrimina tions B1-A1, B2-A2, C1-B1, C2-B2 [symmetry]; A1-C1, A2-C2 [ransitivity], C1 -A2, C2-A1 [break equivalence]) and were finally exposed to a no-feedback c ondition with the relations trained during the Train Break Equivalence. Thi s sequence was repeated with three different stimulus sets (6 stimuli per s et). Finally, in Phase 3 subjects were tested for the generalization of the BEP with a new stimulus set (6 stimuli per set). In this phase subjects we re exposed to Train Standard Equivalence and immediately after to a General ization Test (GT). Three subjects showed a clear GBEP, 1 subject produced a very close result to the GBEP with errors on the transitive relation, and 1 subject failed to show the predicted pattern. These data provide some sup port for the suggestion that derived relational responding is an overarchin g or generalized operant class.