|
Two choices are enough. Harrie Boelens Leiden University, The Netherlands Sidman (1987) and Carrigan and Sidman (1992) have advised against the use of two-choice procedures in studies of stimulus equivalence. They argue that in two-choice, as opposed to multiple-choice procedures: (1) It is more difficult to make sure that the baseline conditional relations have been established; (2) There is a greater chance that positive tests of stimulus equivalence are not related to the baseline conditional relations; and (3) Certain negative tests of stimulus equivalence are more difficult to interpret. The third argument refers to the possibility that the controlling relation in matching to sample can be rejection, and this could be an equivalence relation. Rejection is more efficient in two-choice than in multiple-choice procedures.In response to the first two arguments, I will argue that they refer to technical difficulties that can easily be handled within the two-choice procedure itself. In response to the third argument, I will argue that the possibility that rejection is an equivalence relation is just one explanation for the negative tests, and that researchers are not under the obligation to rule it out. Further, if one really wants to rule it out, then the three-choice procedure is probably not satisfactory either. Keywords: stimulus equivalence, two-choice procedure, rejection, methodological note |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|