Concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules can provide only weak evidence for matching.
Matching on concurrent VI VR schedules can be a schedule artifact, not proof of a matching rule.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran computer simulations and pigeon experiments on concurrent VI VR schedules.
They asked: does matching happen because animals truly match, or because the schedule tricks us?
They checked if reinforcer rates simply follow whatever choices the pigeon makes first.
What they found
Matching appeared, but for the wrong reason.
The schedule itself made reinforcer rates copy the bird's early choices.
This means the data looked like matching without any real matching process inside the bird.
How this fits with other research
Alba et al. (1972) showed clean matching on similar schedules fifteen years earlier.
Davison et al. (1984) now says that matching may be an artifact, not a true process.
Green et al. (1999) later found rats also showed matching-like patterns, but the rats were actually optimizing overall gain.
Together, these papers flip the story: matching data do not always mean a matching rule is at work.
Why it matters
When you see matching in a client’s data, pause. The schedule itself might be creating the pattern. Check if brief visits to the leaner option still give the best total payoff. If so, the client is optimizing, not matching, and your treatment plan should target the bigger picture, not the local choice ratio.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph total reinforcers earned, not just choice ratios, to see if brief switches still pay off.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Herrnstein and Heyman (1979) showed that when pigeons' pecking is reinforced on concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules, (1) their behavior ratios match the ratio of the schedules' reinforcer frequencies, and (2) there is more responding on the variable interval. Since maximizing the reinforcement rate would require responding more on the variable ratio, these results were presented as establishing the primacy of matching over maximizing. In the present report, different ratios of behavior were simulated on a computer to see how they would affect reinforcement rates on these concurrent schedules. Over a wide range of experimenter-specified choice ratios, matching obtained - a result suggesting that changes in choice allocation produced changes in reinforcer frequencies that correspond to the matching outcome. Matching also occurred at arbitrarily selected choice ratios when reinforcement rates were algebraically determined by each schedule's reinforcement-feedback function. Additionally, three birds were exposed to concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules contingent on key pecking in which hopper durations were varied in some conditions to produce experimenter-specified choice ratios. Matching generally obtained between choice ratios and reinforcer-frequency ratios at these different choice ratios. By suggesting that reinforcer frequencies track choice on this procedure, instead of vice versa, this outcome questions whether matching-as-outcome was due to matching-as-process in the Herrnstein and Heyman study.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1984 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1984.41-83