Abstract
Simultaneous protocols typically yield poorer stimulus equivalence outcomes than do other protocols commonly used in equivalence research. Two independent groups of three 3-member equivalence sets of stimuli were used in conditional discrimination procedures in two conditions, one using the standard simultaneous protocol and the other using a hybrid simultaneous training and simple-to-complex testing. Participants completed the two conditions in one long session in Experiment 1, but in separate sessions in Experiment 2. The same stimulus sets used in Experiment 1 were randomized for the two conditions in Experiment 2. Overall, accuracy was better with the hybrid than with the standard protocol in both experiments. The equivalence yield was also better under the hybrid than under the standard protocol in each experiment. The results suggest that the order of testing for emergent relations may account for the difficulty often encountered with the standard simultaneous protocol.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
