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., B1 C1-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, & Barnes-Holmes, 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
