The study explores the distinction between conditional discrimination and matching to sample in the context of stimulus equivalence. Conditional discrimination involves learning conditional relations between stimuli, such as "If A1, then B1; if A2, then B2." Matching to sample, however, implies that stimuli are not only conditionally related but also equivalent, meaning that A1 and B1 become equivalent members of a stimulus class, and similarly for A2 and B2. The study uses a paradigm with three sets of stimuli (A, B, and C) to test whether conditional discrimination procedures generate equivalence relations. Subjects learn six sample-comparison relations (A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, and A3C3) and are then able to match B- and C-stimuli, generating six new relations (B1C1, B2C2, B3C3, C1B1, C2B2, C3B3). This results in three three-member stimulus classes: A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. The study expands this paradigm by introducing a fourth set of stimuli (D) and teaching eight children not only the AB and AC relations but also the DC relations. Six of the children proved capable of matching B- and D-stimuli, demonstrating the existence of three four-member stimulus classes: A1B1C1D1, A2B2C2D2, and A3B3C3D3. These larger classes were confirmed by the subjects' success with the prerequisite lower-level conditional relations. The study also found that adding the DC relations generated 12 more emergent relations, three each in BD, DB, AD, and CD. The study also tested whether the conditional relations met the criteria of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, which are necessary for equivalence relations. Reflexivity was tested by requiring subjects to match each stimulus to itself. Symmetry was tested by requiring subjects to match sample a to comparison b and then sample b to comparison a. Transitivity was tested by requiring subjects to match sample a to comparison c after having learned the relations aRb and bRc. The study found that the children's performance met the criteria for equivalence relations, demonstrating that conditional discrimination procedures can generate equivalence relations. The study also found that the children's ability to name the stimuli was not necessary for establishing equivalence relations. The study concluded that the conditional discrimination procedure can generate equivalence relations, and that the performance of matching to sample is a form of stimulus equivalence. The study also found that the children's performance was consistent across different types of trials, indicating that the equivalence relations were well-established. The study also found that the children's performance was not affected by the presence of other stimuli, indicating that the equivalence relations were robust. The study also found that the children'sThe study explores the distinction between conditional discrimination and matching to sample in the context of stimulus equivalence. Conditional discrimination involves learning conditional relations between stimuli, such as "If A1, then B1; if A2, then B2." Matching to sample, however, implies that stimuli are not only conditionally related but also equivalent, meaning that A1 and B1 become equivalent members of a stimulus class, and similarly for A2 and B2. The study uses a paradigm with three sets of stimuli (A, B, and C) to test whether conditional discrimination procedures generate equivalence relations. Subjects learn six sample-comparison relations (A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, and A3C3) and are then able to match B- and C-stimuli, generating six new relations (B1C1, B2C2, B3C3, C1B1, C2B2, C3B3). This results in three three-member stimulus classes: A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. The study expands this paradigm by introducing a fourth set of stimuli (D) and teaching eight children not only the AB and AC relations but also the DC relations. Six of the children proved capable of matching B- and D-stimuli, demonstrating the existence of three four-member stimulus classes: A1B1C1D1, A2B2C2D2, and A3B3C3D3. These larger classes were confirmed by the subjects' success with the prerequisite lower-level conditional relations. The study also found that adding the DC relations generated 12 more emergent relations, three each in BD, DB, AD, and CD. The study also tested whether the conditional relations met the criteria of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, which are necessary for equivalence relations. Reflexivity was tested by requiring subjects to match each stimulus to itself. Symmetry was tested by requiring subjects to match sample a to comparison b and then sample b to comparison a. Transitivity was tested by requiring subjects to match sample a to comparison c after having learned the relations aRb and bRc. The study found that the children's performance met the criteria for equivalence relations, demonstrating that conditional discrimination procedures can generate equivalence relations. The study also found that the children's ability to name the stimuli was not necessary for establishing equivalence relations. The study concluded that the conditional discrimination procedure can generate equivalence relations, and that the performance of matching to sample is a form of stimulus equivalence. The study also found that the children's performance was consistent across different types of trials, indicating that the equivalence relations were well-established. The study also found that the children's performance was not affected by the presence of other stimuli, indicating that the equivalence relations were robust. The study also found that the children's