Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1982 Nov;38(3):339–348. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-339

Matching since Baum (1979).

J H Wearden, I S Burgess
PMCID: PMC1347873  PMID: 7175431

Abstract

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.

Full text

PDF
339

Selected References

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

  1. Baum W. M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Bradshaw C. M., Szabadi E., Bevan P., Ruddle H. V. The effect of signaled reinforcement availability on concurrent performances in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jul;32(1):65–74. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradshaw C. M., Szabadi E., Bevan P. The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):71–81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. CATANIA A. C., CUTTS D. Experimental control of superstitious responding inhumans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:203–208. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:253–263. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Davison M. C., Hunter I. W. Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 May;25(3):335–345. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Davison M., Ferguson A. The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Davison M. Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):81–96. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Herrnstein R. J., Heyman G. M. Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable interval variable ratio? J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Mar;31(2):209–223. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Houston A. I., McNamara J. How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 May;35(3):367–396. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hunter I. W., Davison M. C. Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):535–556. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hutton L., Gardner E. T., Lewis P. Matching with a key-peck response in concurrent negative reinforcement schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):225–230. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Leigland S. M. Deviations from matching as a measure of preference for alternatives in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jul;32(1):1–13. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lobb B., Davison M. C. Multiple and concurrent schedule performance: independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jul;28(1):27–39. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lobb B., Davison M. C. Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Sep;24(2):191–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Logue A. W., De Villiers P. A. Matching in concurrent variable-interval avoidance schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jan;29(1):61–66. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mullins E., Agunwamba C. C., Donohoe A. J. On the analysis of studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Mar;37(2):323–327. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Myers D. L., Myers L. E. Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):203–214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Norman W. D., McSweeney F. K. Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):453–462. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pliskoff S. S., Brown T. G. Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jan;25(1):69–73. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Poling A. Performance of rats under concurrent variable-interval schedules of negative reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jul;30(1):31–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rider D. P. Concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules and the matching relation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Nov;36(3):317–328. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rodewald H. K. Concurrent random-interval schedules and the matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Nov;30(3):301–306. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Shull R. L., Pliskoff S. S. Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Nov;10(6):517–527. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Staddon J. E., Hinson J. M., Kram R. Optimal choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 May;35(3):397–412. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wearden J. H. Undermatching on concurrent variable-interval schedules and the power law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jan;33(1):149–152. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wheatley K. L., Engberg L. A. Choice performance in several concurrent key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):181–190. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES