Background activities, induction, and behavioral allocation in operant performance.
Count food-induced side moves as responses and the matching law fits again.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Whitehouse et al. (2014) re-examined old matching-law data. They asked why animals sometimes deviate from perfect matching.
The team looked at food reinforcers that also trigger extra movements. They treated these side moves as a second response class.
Using equations, they showed the moves steal time and responses from the main task.
What they found
When they counted the side moves, the animals’ totals again obeyed the matching law.
The law only looked broken because the extra responses were hidden.
How this fits with other research
Michael (1974) set the original matching-law rules. M et al. keep the rules but add a new line for background activity.
Matson et al. (2004) saw noncontingent food make lab rats start new behaviors. M et al. give a name to those behaviors: induced background responses.
Oliver et al. (2002) fitted matching to real severe problem behavior. Their data also show small deviations. M et al. suggest the same hidden-response fix could tighten those fits.
Why it matters
If your client eats a reinforcer then starts rocking or tapping, that side behavior is part of the allocation picture. Track it, graph it, and plug it into your matching equation. You may find the “problem” mismatch disappears and your treatment decisions become clearer.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →During a food-reinforcer session, tally any repeatable side behaviors for five minutes and add them to your response totals before checking the match.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In experiments on operant behavior, other activities, called "background" activities, compete with the operant activities. Herrnstein's (1970) formulation of the matching law included background reinforcers in the form of a parameter rO, but remained vague about the activities (BO) that produce rO. To gain more understanding, we analyzed data from three studies of performance with pairs of variable-interval schedules that changed frequently in the relative rate at which they produced food: Baum and Davison (2014), Belke and Heyman (1994), and Soto, McDowell, and Dallery (2005). Results sometimes deviated from the matching law, suggesting variation in rO. When rO was calculated from the matching equation, two results emerged: (a) rO is directly proportional to BO, as in a ratio schedule; and (b) rO and BO depend on the food rate, which is to say that BO consists of activities induced by food, as a phylogenetically important event. Other activities unrelated to food (BN ) correspond to Herrnstein's original conception of rO and may be included in the matching equation. A model based on Baum's (Baum, 2012) concepts of allocation, induction, and contingency explained the deviations from the matching law. In the model, operant activity B, BO, and BN competed unequally in the time allocation: B and BO both replaced BN , BO replaced lever pressing (Soto et al.), and key pecking replaced BO (Baum & Davison). Although the dependence of rO and BO on food rate changes Herrnstein's (1970) formulation, the model preserved the generalized matching law for operant activities by incorporating power-function induction.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2014 · doi:10.1002/jeab.100