Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1992 Fall;25(3):691–699. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-691

Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings

Nancy A Neef 1,2,3,4, F Charles Mace 1,2,3,4, Michael C Shea 1,2,3,4, Doran Shade 1,2,3,4
PMCID: PMC1279751  PMID: 16795792

Abstract

We examined how 3 special education students allocated their responding across two concurrently available tasks associated with unequal rates and equal versus unequal qualities of reinforcement. The students completed math problems from two alternative sets on concurrent variable-interval (VI) 30-s VI 120-s schedules of reinforcement. During the equal-quality reinforcer condition, high-quality (nickels) and low-quality items (“program money” in the school's token economy) were alternated across sessions as the reinforcer for both sets of problems. During the unequal-quality reinforcer condition, the low-quality reinforcer was used for the set of problems on the VI 30-s schedule, and the high-quality reinforcer was used for the set of problems on the VI 120-s schedule. Equal- and unequal-quality reinforcer conditions were alternated using a reversal design. Results showed that sensitivity to the features of the VI reinforcement schedules developed only after the reinforcement intervals were signaled through countdown timers. Thereafter, when reinforcer quality was equal, the time allocated to concurrent response alternatives was approximately proportional to obtained reinforcement, as predicted by the matching law. However the matching relation was disrupted when, as occurs in most natural choice situations, the quality of the reinforcers differed across the response options.

Keywords: matching theory, choice, reinforcer quality, reinforcer rate, concurrent schedules

Full text

PDF
691

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baum W. M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):231–242. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum W. M., Rachlin H. C. Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):861–874. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chung S. H., Herrnstein R. J. Choice and delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Jan;10(1):67–74. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fuqua R. W. Comments on the applied relevance of the matching law. J Appl Behav Anal. 1984 Fall;17(3):381–386. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1984.17-381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):107–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hollard V., Davison M. C. Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Nov;16(3):375–380. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hunter I., Davison M. Independence of response force and reinforcement rate on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Mar;37(2):183–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mace F. C., McCurdy B., Quigley E. A. A collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Summer;23(2):197–205. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Martens B. K., Houk J. L. The application of Herrnstein's law of effect to disruptive and on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Jan;51(1):17–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Matthews L. R., Temple W. Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):245–254. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McDowell J. J. The importance of Herrnstein's mathematical statement of the law of effect for behavior therapy. Am Psychol. 1982 Jul;37(7):771–779. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.37.7.771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Miller H. L. Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):335–347. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Myerson J., Hale S. Practical implications of the matching law. J Appl Behav Anal. 1984 Fall;17(3):367–380. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1984.17-367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Vaughan W. Melioration, matching, and maximization. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):141–149. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES