On the analysis of studies of choice

Concurrent schedules: How responses per reinforcer affects estimates of sensitivity to reinforcement

Conventionally, when choice is measured under concurrent schedules, all responses are included. However, the class of all responses consists of 2 sub-classes which are discriminable by their properties: Reinforced responses always equal obtained reinforcers, while unreinforced responses are free to vary. As a result, the inclusion of reinforced responses in choice measures results in sensitivity values in generalized matching that are biased toward larger values, and this bias becomes extreme in some combinations of overall response and reinforcer rates. Different ways of varying concurrent-schedule values also affect estimated sensitivity and the linearity between choice based on all responses and reinforcer ratios. To avoid spurious results and comparisons, and as a matter of good practice, generalized-matching fits and measures should be done using only unreinforced responses.

Two modern developments in matching theory

Matching theory is a mathematical theory of choice behavior, parts of which have been shown to hold in natural human environments and to have important therapeutic applications. Two modern developments in matching theory are discussed in this article. The first is the mathematical description of behavior in asymmetrical choice situations, which are situations where different reinforcers and/or different behaviors are associated with concurrently available response alternatives. Most choice situations in natural human environments are probably asymmetrical. The second development in matching theory is the mathematical description of a tendency toward indifferent responding in all choice situations. Behavior in asymmetrical choice situations and the tendency toward indifferent responding in all choice situations can be described by modifications of the matching equations, which change the equations from lines into power functions. These modern forms have been extraordinarily successful in describing behavior in choice situations, and are the forms most likely to accurately describe human behavior in naturally occurring environments.

Matching theory in natural human environments

Matching theory is a mathematical account of behavior, many aspects of which have been confirmed in laboratory experiments with nonhuman and human subjects. The theory asserts that behavior is distributed across concurrently available response alternatives in the same proportion that reinforcement is distributed across those alternatives. The theory also asserts that behavior on a single response alternative is a function not only of reinforcement contingent on that behavior, but also of reinforcement contingent on other behaviors and of reinforcement delivered independently of behavior. These assertions constitute important advances in our understanding of the effects of reinforcement on behavior. Evidence from the applied literature suggests that matching theory holds not only in laboratory environments, but also in natural human environments. In addition, the theory has important therapeutic implications. For example, it suggests four new intervention strategies, and it can be used to improve treatment planning and management. Research on matching theory illustrates the progression from laboratory experimentation with nonhuman subjects to therapeutic applications in natural human environments.

Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules

The generalized matching law states that the logarithm of the ratio of responses emitted or time spent responding in concurrent variable-interval schedules is a linear function of the logarithm of the ratio of reinforcements obtained. The slope of this relation, sensitivity to reinforcement, varies about 1.0 but has been shown to be different when obtained in different laboratories. The present paper analyzed the results from 18 experiments on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance and showed that response-allocation sensitivity to reinforcement was significantly smaller when arithmetic, rather than exponential, progressions were used to produce variable-interval schedules. There were no differences in time-allocation sensitivity between the two methods of constructing variable-interval schedules. Since the two laboratories have consistently used different methods for constructing variable-interval schedules, the differences in obtained sensitivities to reinforcement are explained. The reanalysis suggests that animals may be sensitive to differences in the distribution of reinforcements in time.

Local rates of responding and reinforcement during concurrent schedules

The literature was searched for information about the local rates of responding and reinforcement during concurrent schedules. The local rates of reinforcement obtained from the two components of a concurrent schedule were equal when a long-duration changeover delay was used and when many sessions were conducted, except when the two components provided different simple schedules. The local rates of responding were equal under some conditions, but they differed when one component provided a ratio and the other an interval schedule. Across schedules, local rates of reinforcement changed with changes in the schedule of reinforcement. Local rates of responding did not change with changes in change-over-delay duration but did with changes in the changeover ratio and with changes in the programmed rates of reinforcement. The results generally conform to the Equalizing and Melioration Principles and help to clarify current statements of the Matching Law. The results also suggest that changes in the local rates of responding and reinforcement may be orderly across schedules.

Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules

In multiple schedules of reinforcement, ratios of responses in successive components are relatively insensitive to ratios of obtained reinforcers. An analysis is proposed that attributes changes in absolute response rates to concurrent interactions between programmed reinforcement and extraneous reinforcement in other components. The analysis predicts that ratios of responses in successive components vary with reinforcer ratios, qualified by a term describing the reinforcement context, that is, programmed and extraneous reinforcers. Two main predictions from the analysis were confirmed in an experiment in which pigeons' responses were reinforced in the components of a multiple schedule and analog extraneous reinforcement was scheduled for an alternative response in each component. Sensitivity of response and time ratios to reinforcer ratios in the multiple schedules varied as a function of the rate of extraneous reinforcers. Bias towards responding in one component of the multiple schedule varied as an inverse function of the ratios of extraneous reinforcer rate in the two components. The data from this and previous studies of multiple-concurrent performance were accurately predicted by our analysis and supported our contention that the allocation of behavior in multiple-schedule components depends on the relative values of concurrently-available reinforcers within each component.

Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers

Six pigeons responded on a series of concurrent exponential variable-interval schedules, offering a within-subject comparison with previously published data from concurrent arithmetic variable-interval schedules. Both relative and overall reinforcer rates were varied between conditions. The generalized matching law described the data well, with undermatching much more frequent than strict matching. Time-allocation sensitivity consistently exceeded response-allocation sensitivity for both schedule types, and exponential-schedule sensitivity exceeded arithmetic-schedule sensitivity for both measures of choice. A further set of conditions using variable-interval schedules whose shortest interval was correlated with the mean interval, like arithmetic schedules, but that provided a constant conditional probability of reinforcement, like exponential schedules, produced sensitivities between those produced by conventional arithmetic and exponential schedules. Unlike previous arithmetic-schedule results, exponential sensitivity changed nonmonotonically with changes in overall reinforcer rate. The results clarify our knowledge of the effects of arithmetic and exponential schedules but confuse our understanding of the effects of overall reinforcer rate on concurrent choice.

Undermatching and overmatching as deviations from the matching law

A model of performance under concurrent variable-interval reinforcement schedules that takes as its starting point the hypothetical "burst" structure of operant responding is presented. Undermatching and overmatching are derived from two separate, and opposing, tendencies. The first is a tendency to allocate a certain proportion of response bursts randomly to a response alternative without regard for the rate of reinforcement it provides, others being allocated according to the simple matching law. This produces undermatching. The second is a tendency to prolong response bursts that have a high probability of initiation relative to those for which initiation probability is lower. This process produces overmatching. A model embodying both tendencies predicts (1) that undermatching will be more common than overmatching, (2) that overmatching, when it occurs, will tend to be of limited extent. Both predictions are consistent with available data. The model thus accounts for undermatching and overmatching deviations from the matching law in terms of additional processes added on to behavior allocation obeying the simple matching relation. Such a model thus enables processes that have been hypothesized to underlie matching, such as some type of reinforcement rate or probability optimization, to remain as explanatory mechanisms even though the simple matching law may not generally be obeyed.

Matching since Baum (1979)

Data from recent studies employing concurrent variable-interval schedules are reviewed. Subject species employed in different experiments have included rats, pigeons, and humans, and reinforcers have varied from food and shock avoidance to points exchangeable for money. Undermatching (a greater preference for the schedule of the concurrent pair that delivers the lower rate of reinforcement than the Matching Law predicts) has been preponderant in recent studies, irrespective of whether behavior has been measured in terms of response ratios or time allocation, with the possible exception of data produced by human subjects. Little difference in the degree of undermatching exhibited by response and time measures has been found, except in the results from a single laboratory, in which time-allocation measures have tended to undermatch less than response measures. Procedural features, such as type of manipulandum used and changeover delay, seem to have little effect on the degree of undermatching exhibited, but asymmetrical response manipulanda (such as lever and key) for the different concurrent schedules, or other asymmetries in the experimental situation, show up clearly in bias measures, in a manner consistent with previous analyses.