EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2011, 12, 121 - 134 NUMBER 1 (SUMMER 2011)

121

An “Orwellian” Account of
Stimulus Equivalence.
Are Some Stimuli “More Equivalent”
Than Others?
Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose
Federal University of São Carlos and Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia
sobre Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino

Stimulus equivalence is widely accepted as a model of semantic relations. However, few stud-
ies have used methods other than matching-to-sample to assess whether equivalent stimuli are
semantically related. This article describes that formed equivalence classes with arbitrary stimuli
and faces expressing emotions. A semantic differential showed that the arbitrary stimuli were then
evaluated similarly to the faces, indicating that they had acquired similar meanings. The semantic
differential permitted a quantitative assessment of the degree of relatedness between equivalent
stimuli, and showed that relatedness varied as a function of nodal distance and simultaneous or
delayed matching in training. Another study confirmed the semanticity of relations between faces
expressing emotions and their equivalent stimuli through the IRAP. This study also confirmed
that stimuli in classes formed with delayed matching-to-sample are more strongly related than
those in classes formed with simultaneous matching.
Key words: stimulus equivalence, transfer of functions, relatedness, nodal distance, meaning

The model of stimulus equivalence to sample procedures to verify if a relation

proposed by Sidman and colleagues (e.g.,
Sidman, 1986, 1994; Sidman & Tailby,
1982) offered operational criteria to iden-
tify symbolic functions in experimentally
observable behaviors and to simulate in
laboratory symbolic relations that occur in
natural situations. The model offered, for
instance, behavioral tests based on matching
arbitrarily established between dissimilar
stimuli has the logical properties of reflex-
ivity, symmetry and transitivity. If so, these
stimuli will constitute a class of equivalent
stimuli in which each member will be sub-
stitutable by the others, simulating stimuli
that are symbolic related, for example, in
natural languages.

Renato Bortoloti, Departamento de Psicologia, Universi-
dade Federal de São Carlos; Julio C. de Rose, Departamento
de Psicologia, Universidade Federal de São Carlos.
Author order in this manuscript is alphabetical, since
contribution of both authors is roughly equivalent. Research
reported in this manuscript was supported by the National
Research Council (CNPq, Grant 573972/2008-7) and the
State of São Paulo Foundation for Research Support (FAPESP,
Grant 08/57705-8). Support by CNPq, Grant 400576/2010-
4, to Renato Bortoloti is also gratefully acknowledged. The first
author was supported by a post-doctoral grant from FAPESP,
and the second author was supported by a research productivity
grant from CNPq. We thank Deisy de Souza and Bill McIlvane
for their contributions and support. This manuscript is based
on a paper presented at the V Conference of the European
Association for Behavior Analysis, in Rethymno, Greece.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addres-
sed to Renato Bortoloti or Julio C. de Rose, Departamento de
Psicologia, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Caixa Postal
676, São Carlos, SP, Brazil, 13565-905.

121
122 Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose
Several studies have demonstrated that
when an equivalence class is established,
responses emitted to a stimulus, or functions
acquired by a stimulus, will transfer to the
other members of the class (e.g., Barnes-
Holmes, Keane, Barnes-Holmes, & Smeets,
2000; de Rose, McIlvane, Dube, Galpin,
& Stoddard, 1988; Dougher, Augustson,
Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994;
Hayes, Kohlenberger, & Hayes, 1991),
which is compatible with the notion that in
many contexts, we react to the symbols as if
we were facing the events referred by them.
Thus, a stimulus that has acquired some
functions may be taken as a referent and the
stimuli that are equivalent to the referent can
be taken as symbols that can substitute the
referent in some contexts. Equivalence classes
are also context dependent, i.e., a stimulus
A1 may be equivalent to B1 and not to B2
in a particular context and equivalent to B2
and not to B1 in a different context (Bush,
Sidman, & T. de Rose, 1989; Wulfert &
Hayes, 1988).
These and other studies showing con-
gruence between properties of equivalence
classes with those expected for symbolic
relations (e.g., Barnes-Holmes et al., 2005;
Haimson, Wilkinson, Rosenquist, Ouimet,
& McIlvane, 2009) seem to confirm that the
tests specified by Sidman and colleagues are
quite suitable to assess whether the behavioral
relations under study achieve or not the cri-
teria to be considered symbolic. Assuming
this, we must also recognize that these tests
do not capture all dimensions of the symbolic
function. In most cases, they permit only to
assess whether stimuli are related as equiva-
lent or not. While useful for many purposes,
this categorical classification does not capture
the full range of relational properties that
characterize certain aspects of the complex
human behavior. An example of relational
property not captured by the categorical
classification of stimulus equivalence is the
degree of “relatedness” established between
two terms linked by meaning. Lanny Fields
and colleagues have repeatedly argued that
stimuli in equivalence classes may differ in
their degree of “relatedness” (see below). How-
ever, the use of matching to sample procedures
is not appropriate to detect possible differences
in the relatedness of equivalent stimuli. Match-
ing to sample procedures require forced choices
between discrete alternatives that can only de-
termine if the participant has or has not formed
classes of equivalent stimuli. It is not possible
to determine, for example, if the stimuli in the
classes are equally related to each other.
If equivalence relations can be established
at different levels, the knowledge of the condi-
tions that favor the establishment of stronger
relations constitutes an important scientific
challenge that has not only theoretical im-
plications, but it has also implications for
the praxis of basic, translational and applied
research involving the stimulus equivalence
paradigm. The development of methods that
are more sensitive to the degree of relatedness
is necessary for the experimental investigation
of variables that influence relatedness. Belanich
and Fields (2003) proposed that equivalence
classes may be conceived as functional transfer
networks, and that measures of functional
transfer would be more adequate to detect dif-
ferences in relatedness. This article summarizes
recent research developing and applying dif-
ferent methods enabling a quantitative assess-
ment of the degree of functional transfer. The
use of these methods has not only confirmed
that functional transfer is influenced by nodal
distance, as shown by Fields and colleagues
(Fields, Adams, Verhave, & Newman, 1993;
Fields, Landon-Jimenez, Buffington, & Ad-
ams, 1995), but also revealed other variables
that affect the amount of functional transfer
within equivalence classes. In this article we
will review this recent literature and suggest
some implications for future research.
An “Orwellian” Equivalence
In Animal Farm (by George Orwell),
the basic commandment that “all animals
are equal” is changed to “all animals are
equal but some are more equal than others”.
 An “Orwellian” Account of Stimulus Equivalence
Orwell was aware of the inherent contradic-
tion in the assertion of different degrees of
equality, and one aim of the book is precisely
to point out this contradiction in the society
that the work satirizes. Equality is an equiva-
lence relation, and an equivalence relation
could not admit degrees. However, Lanny
Fields and colleagues have argued, without
irony, that equivalence relations between
stimuli may be established in different de-
grees or, in other words, members of a class
of equivalent stimuli may have different de-
grees of relatedness between themselves (e.g.,
Belanich & Fields, 2003; Fields et al., 1993;
Fields et al., 1995; Fields & Watanabe-Rose,
2008).
According to Fields and colleagues, the
relatedness between equivalent stimuli is
inversely proportional to the nodal distance
between them. A node is a stimulus related
by conditional relations to two or more stim-
uli. For instance, when the relations directly
trained to establish A, B, C, D, and E as a
class of equivalent stimuli are AB, AC, AD,
AE, the stimulus A is a node and the others are
not (being called singulars). No trained rela-
tion involves intervening nodes, so the nodal
distance between all members of the class is 0.
The same class could be established, although
probably with more difficulty (cf. Arntzen,
Grondahl, & Eilifsen, 2010), by training
relations AB, BC, CD, and DE. In this case,
the class would contain three nodes, B, C, and
D, because each of these stimuli would have
been directly related to two others. Therefore,
in the case of this linear training protocol,
the nodal distance between members of the
class would be variable. Taking A as reference
point, the other stimuli are at increasing nodal
distances, with the nodal distance from B to
A equal to 0, from C to A equal to 1, from D
to A equal to 2, and from E to A equal to 3.
Fields and colleagues demonstrated that the
transfer of functions from a class member
to the others is inversely proportional to the
nodal distance. They conclude that, as nodal
distance increases, the degree of relatedness
between equivalent stimuli decreases.
123
For instance, Fields et al. (1993) trained
conditional discriminations AB, BC, CD,
and DE, leading to the formation of two
five-member equivalence classes. They
then trained different responses in the
presence of A1 and A2, and observed that
discriminative control over these responses
transferred to other class members. How-
ever, the probability that the equivalent
stimuli evoked the responses was an in-
verse function of nodal distance. The
responses were less reliably evoked by the
D and E stimuli. Fields et al. (1995) also
conducted a similar training to establish two
five-member equivalence classes. Only two
of twelve participants formed the expected
equivalence classes. The experimenters, then,
trained the two participants that formed
classes to emit a response to the A stimuli
and another response to the E stimuli, and
also observed that transfer of discriminative
control over these responses was an inverse
function of nodal distance. The authors not-
ed that the response trained in the presence
of A was emitted with higher frequency when
B was present than when D was present, and
also noted that the response trained in the
presence of E was emitted with higher fre-
quency when D was present than when B was
present. In addition, reaction times (response
latencies) increased with the increase of nodal
distance in relation to A and to E (i.e., the re-
action time was longer to the stimulus C than
to B and to D). These results are consistent
with the notion that the degree of relatedness
between equivalent stimuli decreases with
nodal distance. This notion has not been
without criticism. For instance, Imam (2006)
suggested that differences in the degree of
transfer as a function of nodal distance might
be related to the order of training, so that
the total number of trials with each subse-
quent conditional discrimination decreased
as training progressed. Imam taught college
students to establish three seven-member
equivalence classes, assuring that all trained
and tested conditional discriminations were
presented in an equal number of trials.
124 Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose
No difference was found in matching accu-
racy and in response latency as a function of
nodal distance. On the basis of these results,
Imam challenged the generality of nodality
effects. He acknowledged, however, that this
left unexplained the results for the two par-
ticipants of Fields et al. (1995), since number
of trials for each conditional discrimination
had been equalized in that study.
Sidman (1994) argued against a structural
notion of equivalence classes and suggested the
use of the expression “nodal number” rather
than nodal distance. He considered separately
effects of nodal number on the emergence of
equivalence classes and on the relatedness of
stimuli after the classes had been formed. He
suggested that effects of nodal number on the
rate of emergence of equivalence classes were
plausible, but the available experiments could
be criticized on methodological grounds. He
pointed out, particularly, that in most stud-
ies that showed an effect of nodal number on
class emergence, training had been conducted
with only two comparison stimuli. According
to Sidman, this would favor a competition of
discriminative control by positive and nega-
tive comparison stimuli, that could lead to
more variability in the results (see Carrigan
& Sidman, 1992; Johnson & Sidman, 1993).
As mentioned by Sidman (1994), a study by
Kennedy (1991), found that effects of nodal
number decreased when conditional discrimi-
nations were trained with three comparison
stimuli. However, Sidman argued that the no-
tion of equivalent stimuli differing in degrees
of relatedness would be “either a contradiction
in terms or must refer to differences in features
other than those which define the class.” (Sid-
man, 1994, p. 543).
A more recent study addressing this
question was conducted by Fields and
Watanabe-Rose (2008). They established
two six-member equivalence classes, train-
ing conditional discriminations AB, BC,
CD, DE, and EF. After training a different
response to C1 and C2, they found that
control over this response transferred equally
to all other members of the respective classes.
However, when different responses were
trained to the C and D members of each
class, the classes “bifurcated” according to
the nodal structure, so that control over the
response trained to the C stimuli transferred
to the B and A stimuli, whereas control over
the response trained to the D stimuli trans-
ferred to the E and F stimuli.
With the exception of reaction time mea-
sures (e.g., Fields et al., 1995; Imam, 2006)
most measures in these studies were of an
all or none type. The response trained in the
presence of one classmember either was or
was not emitted in the presence of another
classmember. Also, in these studies, degree
of relatedness was investigated as a function
of a single variable, nodal distance (or nodal
number, if a term not structurally bent is to
be preferred). And studies of the effect of
nodal distance on degree of relatedness of
equivalent stimuli were conducted mostly
with conditional discrimination training
with only two comparison stimuli, which,
as Sidman pointed out, could difficult in-
terpretation of results.
Bortoloti and Rose (2007, 2009) in-
troduced a different method to verify the
transfer of meaning between equivalent
stimuli, which permitted a more continu-
ous measure of transfer of functions and,
possibly, of relatedness. The introduction
of a more continuous assessment of transfer
also opened ways to investigation of the ef-
fect of other variables that might influence
the degree of transfer within equivalence
classes. In these studies, meaningful stimuli,
faces expressing emotions, were condition-
ally related to arbitrary stimuli. Bortoloti
and de Rose reasoned that, in this case, the
abstract stimuli should become symbols of
the emotional expressions and should there-
fore share the meaning of these expressions.
They compared the meaning of the faces and
the meaning of stimuli equivalent to them
using a widely accepted measure of meaning,
the semantic differential (Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum, 1957), in order to determine
to what extent arbitrary stimuli equivalent
 An “Orwellian” Account of Stimulus Equivalence
to a meaningful stimulus would acquire the
meaning of the latter.
The semantic differential is a measure
used to quantify the meaning that partici-
pants attribute to “concepts” (words, phrases,
photographs, drawings, etc.). Empirical
research has demonstrated the reliability
and sensitivity of the semantic differential
as a measure of meaning in a wide variety
of conditions (Pereira, 1986) and also the
ease of use of the instrument (Engelmann,
1978). The semantic differential is generally
comprised of a set of bipolar scales, usually
of seven intervals that are anchored at theirs
ends, on the right and on the left, by opposite
adjectives. The meaning of each interval is
described in the instructions for participants.
For each concept presented, the participants
are required to indicate on each scale one
of the extreme intervals if they think that
the concept is “very strongly” related to the
neighboring adjective, the immediately more
central interval if they think the concept is
“more or less” related to the adjective, and
the third interval from the extreme to the
center, if they consider that the concept is
“just slightly” related to the adjective. The
central interval is the origin and the neutral
point of each scale; it should be marked if
the concept is, for the participant, equally
related to the two adjectives or if the scale
has no relation with the concept. The central
interval receives the value zero. The remain-
ing intervals receive quantifiers expressed by
numerical values ranging between -3 and +3.
For example, in the scale Good:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:
Bad, in which the adjective “good” is con-
sidered positive and the adjective “bad” is
considered negative, the values between these
two polar extremes range from +3 in the left
end to -3 in the right end. Each value marks
thus the direction of the chosen pole and the
distance to it. Direction and distance are,
respectively, the quality and the intensity
of the concept’s meaning evaluated by the
bipolar scale1.
Bortoloti and Rose (2007) trained col-
lege students in conditional discriminations
125
that generated equivalence classes involving
facial expressions and abstract pictures.
Next, participants evaluated some of these
pictures using a semantic differential. A
control group, which had not been taught
the relations between the stimuli, evaluated
the abstract pictures and the faces using the
same instrument. The abstract pictures were
evaluated as neutral by the control group
(mean ratings tended to the central interval
in different scales, which received the value
zero) and the faces were evaluated differently,
depending on the emotion expressed; for in-
stance, a happy face was evaluated positively
and an angry face was evaluated negatively.
Similar values were assigned to the faces
and to stimuli equivalent to them (made by
participants submitted to the conditional
discrimination training). The similarities
between the evaluations of the faces by the
control and the evaluations of the pictures
by the experimental group are indications
that there may be extension of meaning from
“referents” to “symbols” in experimental
simulations based on stimulus equivalence.
This result has provided additional external
validation of stimulus equivalence as a model
of meaning. In addition, quantification of
the generalization of meaning among the
1
Osgood et al. (1957) explained the performance of the
subject facing the semantic differential in terms of a mediation
process, conceived as something that merges between stimuli
and responses. A particular sign would elicit a specific reaction
that would be similar, in some degree, to the reaction that
would be elicited directly by the referred object. The concept,
as a sign of a meaning, would elicit a mediational reaction
associated with one of the polar terms, which would determine
the choice of the pole; the intensity of this reaction would
determine the interval to be marked. There is not, however, a
necessary relationship between the adoption of the semantic
differential and the acceptance of theories that its proponents
used to ground it. According to Engelmann (1978), Osgood
and colleagues “(...) based on the concept of ‘act of pure stimu-
lation’ by Hull, sought to provide an interpretation of various
behaviors in which there is no clear relationship between
stimuli and responses – including the use of signs – without
straying from the principles of conditioning.” (p. 115). The
authors themselves admit that the empirical validity and
practical use of the semantic differential have no relation with
the learning theory chosen to present it. Using the semantic
differential, Bortoloti and Rose (2007) were not committed to
the mediatory hypothesis of Osgood et al. This study can be
considered as the use of a methodology based on a measuring
instrument with empirical validity widely recognized in other
situations to assess whether equivalence relations may provide
meaning to previously meaningless stimuli.
126 Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose
stimuli in an equivalence class allowed the
development of a line of investigation to
address quantitative dimensions of symbolic
relational learning, which matching to sample
procedures would not suffice to evaluate.
Bortoloti and de Rose (2009) conducted
two experiments studying parameters that
could influence the relatedness of equiva-
lent stimuli. The first experiment compared
equivalence classes generated by simultane-
ous matching (for one group of participants)
and by 2-s delayed matching (for another
group). Participants were trained on AB, AC,
and CD conditional relations, in which A1,
A2, and A3 were pictures of faces expressing
happiness, anger, and neutrality, respectively.
Formation of equivalence classes was assessed
by BD and DB tests, which did not involve
the presentation of the faces. Participants
who formed equivalence classes evaluated
the stimuli D (one node from the faces) with
the semantic differential and evaluations were
compared with evaluations of the faces by
a control group. The control group yielded
positive evaluations of the happy faces and
negative evaluations of the angry faces and
the experimental group yielded positive evalu-
ations of the arbitrary D stimulus equivalent
to the happy face and negative evaluations
of the arbitrary D stimulus equivalent to
the angry face. However, evaluations by the
delayed group were more similar to the faces
than those by the simultaneous group. This
showed that transfer of meaning from the
faces to the abstract stimuli was stronger
when the classes were established with de-
layed matching. These results are compatible
with the hypothesis that delayed matching
yields equivalence classes in which stimuli are
more strongly related than are the stimuli in
classes formed by training with simultaneous
matching. Experiment 2 used the semantic
differential to evaluate relatedness of stimuli in
larger equivalence classes that contained larger
nodal distances. Two groups were trained in
conditional relations AB, AC, CD, DE, EF,
and FG, and tested in emergent relations BG
and GB to verify equivalence class formation.
The A stimuli were faces expressing emotions,
as in Experiment 1, and the remaining stimuli
were abstract. One of the groups was trained
with simultaneous matching and the other
with 2-s delayed matching. Then, participants
who formed classes evaluated the D or F
stimuli with the semantic differential. Half of
the participants of each group evaluated the
D stimuli (one node from the faces) and the
other half evaluated the F stimuli (three nodes
from the faces). The D stimuli were evalu-
ated similarly to the faces, as in Experiment
1, and evaluations from the delayed group
were again more similar to evaluations of the
faces. However, evaluations of the F stimuli
were not similar to the faces, for both groups.
These results show that transfer of meaning
from the faces to the abstract stimuli is an
inverse function of nodal distance, and are
compatible with the claim of Fields and col-
leagues, that relatedness of equivalent stimuli
decreases with nodal distance.
An advantage of the semantic differential
was to provide a quantitative measure of
transfer of semantic functions from the faces
to their putative symbols, i.e., the arbitrary
stimuli equivalent to them. A reanalysis of
the data from Experiment 2 of Bortoloti and
de Rose (2009) shows the mean deviation
between evaluations of the abstract stimuli
and those of the faces equivalent to them.
This deviation was calculated by averaging
the absolute values of differences between
the evaluation of a face and the evaluation
of a stimulus equivalent to it, for each of the
13 scales of the semantic differential used by
Bortoloti and de Rose (2009, Experiment 2).
Thus, if the median evaluation of the happy
face in a scale of the semantic differential was
identical to the median of the evaluation of,
for instance, the D stimulus equivalent to
the happy face, the deviation on that scale
was 0. If the evaluations were different, one
value was subtracted from the other and the
absolute value constituted the deviation in
that scale. The absolute values for all scales
were averaged to yield the mean deviation
from the faces for their equivalent stimuli.
 An “Orwellian” Account of Stimulus Equivalence
Deviations were calculated for the D and F
stimuli equivalent to the happy and angry
faces, for the delayed and simultaneous
groups. The degree of relatedness is inversely
related to the deviation from the faces. There-
fore, the smaller the deviation, the larger is
the degree of relatedness between the faces
and the stimuli equivalent to them. Figure 1
shows the mean deviation between evaluations
of the abstract stimuli and those of the faces
equivalent to them.
In general terms, Figure 1 seems to con-
firm that transfer of meaning is an inverse
function of nodal distance and is larger with
delayed matching than with simultaneous
matching. For stimuli with a distance of three
nodes from the faces, evaluations are similar to
the ones yielded by the control group, which
had no matching to sample training and could
not form equivalence relations between arbi-
trary stimuli and the faces. This indicates that
accurate performance in equivalence tests do
not completely predict transfer of functions
or, in other words, transfer of meaning.
It is interesting to note that evaluations
with the semantic differential showed less
deviation for the stimuli equivalent to the
happy faces than to the angry faces when
these stimuli were one node from the faces.
The stimulus that was at one node from the
happy faces received the least deviant evalu-
Happy Angry
3,5
DMTS SMTS DMTS SMTS
3
2,5
2 employed, the difference between the levels
1,5
1
0,5
0 that can be seen in Figure 1.
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
Nodal separation
Figure 1. Mean deviation between evaluations
of the abstract stimuli and those of the faces
equivalent to them.
127
ations when the delayed matching to sample
training format was employed. It received
less deviant evaluations than the stimuli that
were at three nodes from the happy faces
when both the delayed (t=4.518, p<0.0001)
and the simultaneous (t=3.373, p<0.001)
matching to sample format were employed.
It also received less deviant evaluations than
the stimuli that were at both one and three
nodes from the angry faces when both the
delayed and the simultaneous matching
to sample format were employed (1-node
DMTS: t=1.990, p<0.05; 1-node SMTS:
t=1.887, p<0.05; 3-nodes DMTS: t=3.406,
p<0.001; 3-nodes SMTS: t=3.410, p<0.001).
It also received less deviant evaluations than
the stimulus that was at one node from the
happy faces when the simultaneous matching
to sample format was employed (t=2.020;
p<0.05). The stimulus that was at one node
from the happy faces in the simultaneous
matching to sample training format received
less deviant evaluations than the stimuli that
were at three nodes from both the happy and
the angry faces in both the simultaneous and
the delayed matching to sample training
formats (happy, 3-nodes, SMTS: t=1.608,
p<0.05; happy, 3-nodes DMTS: 3.137, t=,
p<0.05; angry, 3-nodes SMTS: t=2.182,
p<0.05; angry, 3-nodes DMTS: t=2.363,
p<0.001). The stimulus that was one node
distant from the angry faces received less
deviant evaluations than the stimulus at
three nodes from the angry faces only when
the delayed matching to sample format was
employed (t=1.906, p<0.05); when the si-
multaneous matching to sample format was
of deviant evaluations was not statistically
significant (t=1.042, p=0.1538). Table 1
summarizes the levels of statistical signifi-
cance for the differences in levels of deviation
In addition to prove that meaning
can transfer differentially within equiva-
lence classes, these studies showed that
transfer of meaning can be influenced
by parameters other than nodal distance.
128 Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose

Table 1. Statistical significance for the differences between the levels of deviations from the evaluations of
the emotional faces comparing pair-wise of experimental conditions.
Happy Happy Angry Angry Happy Happy Angry Angry
1 node 1 node 1 node 1 node 3 nodes 3 nodes 3 nodes 3 nodes
DMTS SMTS DMTS SMTS DMTS SMTS DMTS SMTS
Happy
1 node - * * * *** ** ** **
DMTS
Happy
1 node - ns ns * * ** *
SMTS
Angry
1 node - ns * ns * *
DMTS
Angry
1 node - * ns ns ns
SMTS
Happy
3 nodes - ns ns ns
DMTS
Happy
3 nodes - ns ns
SMTS
Angry
3 nodes - ns
DMTS
Angry
3 nodes -
SMTS
* = p<0.5; ** = p<0.01; *** = p<0.001; ns = p>0.5

Use of the semantic differential to assess
transfer of meaning between equivalent
stimuli allowed, in turn, to extend the vali-
dation of stimulus equivalence as a model
of meaning, confirming that the formation
of equivalence implies sharing of meaning,
with a measure of meaning external to the
equivalence paradigm2. The semantic dif-
ferential also allows an assessment of the de-
gree of semantic similarity between stimuli,
thus enabling a quantitative assessment of
relatedness.
Bortoloti and de Rose (in press) used
yet another method, the IRAP, to con-
firm that equivalent stimuli are semanti-
cally related and that they may differ
in the degree of transfer of meaning.
2
Recent research with electrophysiological methods has
also provided independent evidence that member of equiva-
lence classes share meaning (e.g., Barnes-Holmes et al., 2005;
Haimson, et al., 2009).
The IRAP, Implicit Relational Assessment
Protocol (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes,
Hayden, Milne, Power & Stewart, 2006),
involves simultaneous presentation, on a
computer screen, of an attributive concept,
such as “pleasant” or “unpleasant”, a target
stimulus and two relational terms such as
“similar” and “opposite.” Several target
stimuli may appear along different trials,
such as, for instance, “flower”, “insect”, “per-
fume”, “vomit”, “joy”, “panic”, etc. On each
trial the participant is required to respond,
as fast as possible, pressing a key relating the
target and attributive stimuli in a given way.
In a study involving, for instance, “perfume”
and “vomit” as targets, and “pleasant” and
“unpleasant” as attributive stimuli, and “simi-
lar” and “opposite” as relational terms, the
participant is required, in a consistent block of
trials, to respond “similar” for “perfume” and
 An “Orwellian” Account of Stimulus Equivalence
“pleasant” and for “vomit” and “unpleasant”,
and opposite for “perfume” and “unpleas-
ant” and for “vomit” and “pleasant”. In an
inconsistent block, on the other hand, the par-
ticipant is required to respond “similar” for
“perfume” and “unpleasant” and for “vomit”
and “pleasant”, and “opposite” for “perfume”
and “pleasant” and for “vomit” and “unpleas-
ant”. It is assumed that consistent relations
are more probable and, therefore, response
latencies in consistent trials will be shorter
than in inconsistent trials. A shorter latency
in consistent trials, compared to inconsistent
trials, is called an IRAP effect.
Bortoloti and de Rose (in press) taught
college students to establish equivalence
classes, each comprising pictures of faces
expressing happiness (for one class) or anger
(for another class), and nonsense words. One
group was taught with simultaneous match-
ing and the other with 2-s delayed matching.
Participants who demonstrated formation
of the programmed equivalence classes were
then submitted to IRAP tests, in which each
trial displayed a nonsense word as attributive
stimulus and a picture of a face expressing ei-
ther happiness or anger, as target. Relational
stimuli were V (initial letter of the Portuguese
word “verdadeiro”, which means “true”)
and F (for the Portuguese word “falso”, that
means “false”). Consistent blocks required
that the participant choose V for target and
attributive stimulus of the same class, and F
for attributive stimulus and target from dif-
ferent classes. In inconsistent blocks, these re-
lations were reversed. When all latencies were
considered, participants of the delayed group
showed an IRAP effect, whereas participants
of the simultaneous group did not. When
latencies were considered separately for trials
with angry and happy faces, participants of
the delayed group showed an IRAP effect for
both. Participants of the simultaneous group,
on the other hand, showed an IRAP effect for
the happy faces, but not for the angry faces.
This study provides additional support for
the notion that delayed matching produces
stronger transfer of meaning and, therefore,
129
might be taken as another indication that
stimuli in equivalence classes may differ in
their degree of relatedness. Non-sense words
and faces, when used as attributive and target
stimuli, respectively, yielded an IRAP effect
when classes had been established by delayed
matching. When classes were established
with simultaneous matching, an IRAP effect
was obtained only for the happy class.
Besides the effect of simultaneous vs.
delayed matching, this study also showed a
difference between faces. For happy faces,
an IRAP effect was obtained both with
delayed and simultaneous matching. For
angry faces, an IRAP effect was obtained only
with delayed matching. This may indicate,
as suggested by Bortoloti and de Rose (in
press), that certain meaningful stimuli may
be more “relatable” than others to abstract
stimuli. Arntzen and Lian (2010) have
shown that equivalence class formation is
more likely when training includes arbitrary
and meaningful stimuli, in comparison with
training only with arbitrary stimuli. The pres-
ent results suggest that meaningful stimuli
may differ quantitatively in the strength of
relations they form with arbitrary stimuli.
Further studies should investigate this inter-
esting possibility.
Concluding Remarks
Theoretical Issues- The semantic differ-
ential allowed a more continuous assessment
of transfer of meaning, providing another
demonstration that transfer among members
of an equivalence class is differential. Transfer
decreases with nodal distance and increases
with delayed matching training. This differ-
ential transfer is compatible with the notion
that equivalent stimuli may differ in their
degree of relatedness, as claimed by Fields
and colleagues (e.g., Belanich & Fields, 2003;
Fields et al., 1995; Fields & Watanabe-Rose,
2008). Fields and colleagues argued that re-
latedness is a function of nodal distance. The
studies of Bortoloti and de Rose confirmed,
with different methods and perhaps more
130 Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose
sensitive measures, that transfer of mean-
ing within equivalence classes is an inverse
function of nodal distance, and showed that
parameters other than nodal distance can also
influence transfer of meaning.
At first sight, data with the semantic dif-
ferential and the IRAP (Bortoloti & de Rose,
2009, in press) might be taken as a confirma-
tion that equivalent stimuli are not equally
related to each other. This “Orwellian” view
of equivalence is, obviously, a contradiction
in terms, as pointed out by Sidman (1994),
since it is not mathematically possible for
some stimuli to be “more equivalent” than
others.
We would like to point out some possi-
bilities of solution to this paradox, although
we do not intend to exhaust the possibilities
of interpretation and much less to offer a
definitive solution. Sidman (1994, 2000)
has argued that behavioral equivalence is
an instance of mathematical equivalence,
generated by reinforcement contingencies.
According to this view, it does not make
sense to postulate degrees of relatedness.
On the other hand, Sidman points out that
stimuli are equivalent only with respect to
the property that defines the class. They may
differ in other properties and may belong to
different equivalence classes. Thus, whenever
individuals behave differentially regarding
members of equivalence classes, this might
depend on other classes to which the stimuli
belong, or on properties of the stimuli other
than the one that defines the class. Sidman
(1994) suggested that stimuli that comprise
an equivalence class may also belong to other
classes on the basis of nodality, particularly
because nodality is often related to the order
of training. Differential transfer, according to
Sidman, would reflect the fact that stimuli
that are equivalent as a result of a particular
conditional discrimination training, may
belong to different classes on the basis of
nodality.
This explanation is compatible with the
results of Bortoloti and de Rose (2009). Each
face was found to be equivalent to a set of
arbitrary stimuli as a function of conditional
discrimination training. Equivalence tests
showed that members of each class were
substitutable from each other in emergent
conditional discriminations. When, in a
different condition, participants assigned
values on semantic differential scales, the
values assigned were a function of at least
two classes to which the stimuli belonged: the
class comprising a face and the equivalent ar-
bitrary stimuli, and different classes based on
nodality (probably due to the order in which
conditional discriminations were trained).
Another explanation for the paradox of
“Orwellian equivalence” would be that the
mathematical equivalence between stimuli
is imposed by the matching to sample pro-
cedure, in which participants make forced
choices between discrete alternatives. Accord-
ing to this view, transfer of meaning would
be a continuous dimension. For instance, the
word in a person’s first language would be
very strongly related to a particular meaning.
When learning a second language, the same
meaning (approximately) might transfer to a
word in the second language, but the relation
would not be, at least in the initial stages of
learning, as strong as that with the word in
the first language. However, matching to
sample trials between words and pictures
could not detect these differences, because
of the all or none nature of the selections in
matching trials. Based on the matching to
sample trials, we would conclude that words
in the second language are equivalent to the
pictures. This would capture an important
property of the second language words: the
pictures and the words are related by mean-
ing. Stimulus equivalence, assessed by match-
ing to sample tests, would therefore capture
an important aspect of meaning, but would
not give a complete picture. A quantitative
dimension would have been left out.
Applied Issues and Directions for Future
Research – Whatever the solution for the
puzzle of Orwellian equivalence will be, the
example of learning a second language points
to an important applied consideration.
 An “Orwellian” Account of Stimulus Equivalence
Applications of the stimulus equivalence
paradigm to education and rehabilitation are
increasing (e.g., Almeida-Verdu et al., 2008;
Rehfeldt, 2011; Rehfeldt & Barnes-Holmes,
2009). Whenever the stimulus equivalence
paradigm is applied to establish or develop
symbolic repertoires, the question of transfer
of meaning may be relevant. In applying
stimulus equivalence to teach, for instance,
a second language, it may be important to
consider not only the fact that a word has ac-
quired some meaning, but also how much the
meaning transferred to the particular word.
Researchers, instructors, and program devel-
opers should consider the fact that delayed
matching produces more transfer of mean-
ing than simultaneous matching. The actual
decision about using simultaneous or delayed
matching would take other questions into
consideration as well, since delayed matching
may yield more transfer of meaning, but may
require more extended training.
Orwellian equivalence may be a theoreti-
cal puzzle, but it may also open important
avenues for future research. For instance,
Bortoloti and de Rose (2009, in press) found
evidences, with both the semantic differential
and the IRAP, that the transfer of functions
in equivalence classes involving happy faces
is higher than in equivalence classes involving
angry faces. This result is apparently consistent
with studies that describe faster and more
intense responses to happy faces (Batty & Tay-
lor, 2003; Kirita & Endo, 1995, Leppänen &
Hietanen, 2004), but it is contradictory with
studies that describe faster responses to nega-
tive expressions (Fox, Lester, Russo, Bowles,
Pichler, & Dutton, 2000, Hansen & Hansen,
1988; Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001).
It is necessary, therefore, further investigations
focused on the effects of emotional faces on
the relatedness of equivalent stimuli. A sys-
tematic replication of these studies by varying
the type of the emotional stimuli would also
be interesting. The stimuli could be significant
words such as love, hate, freedom, oppression,
abuse, pleasure, etc., and photographs and
videos depicting various kinds of scenes.
131
Another example: Bortoloti and de Rose
(2009, in press) showed that a matching to
sample training with a 2-s delay between the
removal of the sample and the presentation of
the comparison stimuli produces equivalence
classes with higher transfer of functions than
a simultaneous matching to sample training.
It seems important that effects of parametric
variations of the delay’s length on the related-
ness of equivalent stimuli are the object of
investigation in future studies.
Besides influencing the transfer of func-
tions of equivalent stimuli, the delay is a
parameter that also affects the formation
of equivalence classes, as shown by Arntzen
(2006),Vaidya and Smith (2006) and Bor-
toloti and de Rose (2009, Experiment 2).
It is surely important to investigate if other
parameters that affect the establishment of
equivalence relations may also influence the
level of transfer of functions established be-
tween the related stimuli. A parameter that
affects the formation of equivalence classes is
the structure of training that is used. Three
types of structure have been compared. For
training classes with, for instance, four mem-
bers, the baseline of conditional discrimina-
tions can be trained in a linear arrangement
(AB, BC, CD), in an arrangement with a
single node constituted by samples, called one
to many, or SAN, sample as node (AB, AC,
AD), and an arrangement with a single node
consisting of comparison stimuli, called many
to one, or CAN, comparison as the node (BA,
CA, DA). An experimental investigation
could be conducted to assess the effects of
these three types of arrangement on transfer
of meaning between equivalent stimuli. In
this experiment, stimuli A1, A2 and A3
could be faces expressing anger, happiness
and neutrality, and different groups of par-
ticipants could be submitted to arrangements
of training type one to many (AB, BC, CD,
CE), many to one (AB, CB, DB, EB) and
linear (AB, BC, CD, DE). Participants in
each group would then evaluate the stimuli
C, D and E with the semantic differential.
Many other investigations involving variables
132 Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose
such as directionality, overtraining, class size,
and so on can be conduct using the same
procedural logic presented in this article.
Probably a more direct way to detect
variations in transfer of meaning can be
based on event-related potentials (ERPs),
that are small changes in the brain’s electri-
cal activity recorded from the scalp, evoked
by some external or internal events. The
N400, particularly, is a negative component
that peaks about 400 ms after the presenta-
tion of a stimulus and reflects the degree of
incompatibility between this stimulus and a
semantic context previously established. It
has been shown that the N400 is modulated
significantly by the formation of equivalence
classes (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2005; Haim-
son et al., 2009). Haimson et al. (2009) first
replicated the N400 component obtained
with pairs of common English words. In
a second experiment, they taught relations
AB, AC, AD, AE, and AF in order to gen-
erate equivalence classes between arbitrary
stimuli and found that the presentation of
pairs of stimuli such as BC, DE, FD, etc., in
which the first stimulus simulated a semantic
context for the second one, evoked a large
N400 component only when these stimuli
did not belong to the same equivalence class
(e.g., pairs as B1C2, D2E3, F3D1, etc.). An
important direction for future research on
possible differences in relatedness of equiva-
lent stimuli, therefore, would be through
electrophysiological measures, particularly
the N400 component. If this component
proves sensitive to parameters such as nodal
distance and delayed matching, conclusions
about differential transfer of meaning within
equivalence classes would receive further sup-
port, and this may help to clarify the theo-
retical questions about relatedness between
equivalent stimuli.
References
Almeida-Verdu, A. C., Huziwara, E. M., de
Souza, D. G., de Rose, J. C., Bevilacqua,
M. C., Lopes Jr, J., Alves, C. O., & McIl-
vane, W. J (2008). Relational learning in
children with deafness and cochlear im-
plants. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 89, 407-424. doi:10.1901/
jeab.2008-89-407
Arntzen, E. (2006). Delayed matching-to-
sample: Probability of stimulus equiva-
lence as a function of delays between
sample and comparison stimuli during
training. The Psychological Record, 56,
135–167.
Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C.
(2010). The effects of different train-
ing structures in the establishment of
conditional discriminations and subse-
quent performance on tests for stimulus
equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60,
437-462.
Arntzen, E., & Lian, T. (2010). Trained and
derived relations with pictures versus ab-
stract stimuli as nodes. The Psychological
Record, 60, 659-678.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y.,
Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R., & Stew-
art, I. (2006). Do you really know what
you believe? Developing the Implicit
Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP)
as a direct measure of implicit beliefs. The
Irish Psychologist, 32, 169-177.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Keane, J., Barnes-
Holmes, Y., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). A
derived transfer of emotive functions as
a means of establishing differential pref-
erences for soft drinks. The Psychological
Record, 50, 493-511.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Staunton, C., Whelan,
R., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Commins, S.,
Walsh, D., Stewart, I., Smeets, P. M., &
Dymond, S. (2005). Derived stimulus
relations, semantic priming, and event-
related potentials: testing a behavioral
theory of semantic networks. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84,
417-433. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.78-04
Batty, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2003). Early
processing of the six basic facial emo-
tional expressions. Cognitive Brain
Research, 17, 613-620. doi:10.1016/
 An “Orwellian” Account of Stimulus Equivalence
S0926-6410(03)00174-5
Belanich, J., & Fields, L. (2003). Generalized
equivalence classes as response transfer
networks. The Psychological Record, 53,
373–413.
Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2007). Me-
dida do grau de relacionamento entre es-
tímulos equivalentes. Psicologia: Reflexão
e Crítica, 20, 250-256. doi:10.1590/
S0102-79722007000200011
Bortoloti, R., & de Rose, J. C. (2009). As-
sessment of the relatedness of equivalent
stimuli through a semantic differential.
The Psychological Record, 59, 563-590.
Bortoloti, R. & de Rose, J. C. (in press).
Equivalent Stimuli Are More Strongly
Related after Training with Delayed than
with Simultaneous Matching: A Study
Using the Implicit Relational Assess-
ment Procedure (IRAP). The Psychological
Record.
Bush, K. M., Sidman, M., & de Rose, T.
(1989). Contextual control of emergent
equivalence relations. Journal of the Ex-
perimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29-45.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.51-29
Carrigan, P. F., Jr., & Sidman, M. (1992).
Conditional discrimination and equiva-
lence relations: A theoretical analysis of
control by negative stimuli. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58,
459-504. doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-183
de Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W.
V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T.
(1988). Emergent simple discrimina-
tions established by indirect relations to
differential consequences. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50,
1-20. doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-1
Dougher, M., Augustson, E., Markham, M.,
Greenway, D., & Wulfert, E. (1994).
The transfer of respondent eliciting and
extinction functions through stimulus
equivalence classes. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331-351.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331
Engelmamn, A. (1978). Os estados subjetivos,
uma tentativa de classificação de seus relatos
133
verbais. São Paulo: Editora Ática.
Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & New-
man, S. (1993). Are stimuli in equiva-
lence classes equally related to each other?
The Psychological Record, 43, 85-105.
Fields, L., Landon-Jimenez, D. V., Buff-
ington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995).
Maintained nodal-distance effects in
equivalence classes. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129-145.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.64-129
Fields, L. & Watanabe-Rose, M. (2008).
Nodal structure and the partitioning of
equivalence classes. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 359-381.
doi:10.1901/jeab.2008-89-359
Fox, E., Lester, V., Russo, R., Bowles, R.
J., Pichler, A., & Dutton, K. (2000).
Facial expressions of emotion: Are
angry faces detected more efficiently?
Cognition and Emotion, 14, 61-92.
doi:10.1080/026999300378996
Haimson, B., Wilkinson, K.M., Rosenquist,
C., Ouimet, C. & McIlvane, W.J. (2009).
Electrophysiological correlates of stimu-
lus equivalence processes. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92,
245-256. doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-245
Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. H. (1988).
Finding the face in the crowd: An anger
superiority effect. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 54, 917-924.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.917
Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Hayes,
L. J. (1991). The transfer of contextual
control over equivalence classes through
equivalence classes: A possible model of
social stereotyping. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 505-518.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1991.56-505
Imam, A. (2006). Experimental control
of nodality via equal presentation of
conditional discriminations in different
equivalence protocols under speed and
no speed conditions. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 107-124.
doi:10.1901/jeab.2006.58-04
Johnson, C., & Sidman, M. (1993). Con-
134 Renato Bortoloti and Julio C. de Rose
ditional discriminations and equivalence
relations: Control by negative stimuli.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 59, 333-347. doi:10.1901/
jeab.1993.59-333
Kennedy, C. H. (1991). Equivalence class
formation influenced by the number of
nodes separating stimuli. Behavioral Pro-
cesses, 24, 219-245. doi:10.1016/0376-
6357(91)90077-D
Kirita, T., & Endo, M. (1995). Happy-face
advantage in recognizing facial expres-
sions. Acta Psychologica, 89, 149-163.
doi:10.1016/0001-6918(94)00021-8
Leppänen, J. M., Kauppinen, P., Peltola, M.
J., & Hietanen, J. K. (2007). Differential
electrocortical responses to increasing
intensities of fearful and happy emo-
tional expressions. Brain Research, 1166,
103-109.
Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F.
(2001). The face in the crowd revisited: A
threat advantage with schematic stimuli.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 80, 381-396. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.80.3.381
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. I., & Tannenbaum,
P. H. (1957). The measurement of mean-
ing. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois
Press.
Pereira, C. A. A. (1986). O diferencial semân-
tico: uma técnica de medida nas ciências hu-
manas e sociais. São Paulo: Editora Ática.
Rehfeldt, R. A. (2011). Toward a technology
of derived stimulus relations: An analysis
of articles published in the Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 1992-2009.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44,
109-119. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-109
Rehfeldt, R. A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y.
(2009). Derived relational responding:
Applications for learners with autism and
other developmental disabilities. Oakland,
CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of
emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson
& M. D. Zeiler (Orgs.), Analysis and
integration of behavioral units. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence Relations
and Behavior: A Research Story. Boston:
Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations
and the reinforcement contingency.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 74, 127-146. doi:10.1901/
jeab.2000.74-127
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Condi-
tional discrimination vs. matching-to-
sample: An Expansion of the testing para-
digm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 37, 261-273. doi:10.1901/
jeab.1982.37-5
Vaidya, M., & Smith, K. N. (2006). Delayed
matching-to-sample training facilitates
derived relational responding. Experimen-
tal Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin,
24, 9–16.
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Trans-
fer of a conditional ordering response
through conditional equivalence classes.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 50, 125–144. doi:10.1901/
jeab.1988.50-125.