If a subject produced the GBEP, the experiment terminated at that point.
None of the subjects showed a GBEP on the first GT.
Subjects 1 and 2 (see Figure 3) showed a perfect GBEP on the second GT (Stimulus Sets 4 and 7 respectively).
In the current experiment, however, the GBEP was obtained without providing an experimental history of symmetry and nonsymmetry breaking.
Subject 6 (see Figure 4) showed a perfect GBEP on the first GT (Set 4).
The data found in the present experiment showed that at least 1 subject (6) showed the GBEP the first time she was tested.
If subjects produced the GBEP, the experiment terminated at that point.
Subject 1 (see Figure 3) showed the GBEP with no errors on the first GT.
The current findings suggest that adding Phase 1 improved the procedures used to produce the GBEP. Certainly, when compared with our previous research, which did not provide a history of broken symmetry training (see Gomez, 1998), the number of trials needed to train the BEP was reduced.
Although broken equivalence responding (BEP) was trained more readily than in our previous research, we still found it relatively difficult to generate the GBEP. For example, only one subject produced the GBEP on the first GT; the two remaining subjects who produced this pattern required extensive multiple-exemplar training before the pattern finally emerged.
The GBEP involved maintaining the A-C transitive relation (A1-C1, A2-C2), but when the C stimuli functioned as samples and the A stimuli as comparisons the transitive relation was to be reversed (i.e., C1-A2, C2-A1).
The variability observed in producing the GBEP suggests that the conditions that produce this response pattern have to be defined more precisely in future research.