Document Type



Equivalence-equivalence is assumed when training of A-B and A-C matching tasks not only leads to matching same-class B and C stimuli but also to matching BC compounds with same-class elements (e.g., B1C1-B2C2) and with different-class elements (e.g., B1C2-B2C3). Like classical analogies (a : b :: c : d), equivalence-equivalence requires matching same functional relations. Experiments 1 to 4 examined equivalence-equivalence in 5-year-old children. In each experiment, subjects were tested for equivalence-equivalence before equivalence and, if they did not show equivalence-equivalence, also after the equivalence test. The experiments included various procedural arrangements designed to facilitate equivalence-equivalence, all of which failed. Only 8/18 children showed equivalence-equivalence, 2 before (11%) and 6 after equivalence (33%), irrespective of the facilitative procedures that were used. Adults served in Experiment 5. This experiment was the same as Experiments 1 through 4 but without facilitative arrangements. All adults showed equivalence-equivalence, most of them before equivalence. These and previously collected findings (Carpentier, Smeets, & BarnesHolmes, 2002) suggest that equivalence-equivalence is an age-related performance similar to that which has been reported in earlier developmental studies on classical analogies. Yet, one should be cautious using equivalence-equivalence as a model for analogical reasoning. The testing procedures in both types of tasks are sufficiently different to permit the performances to be based on different behavioral processes.