Human group choice: discrete-trial and free-operant tests of the ideal free distribution.

The team built two video-game-like tasks. In one, people picked rooms one at a time. In the other, they roamed freely and switched rooms at will.

Each room paid points on its own schedule. Rich rooms paid more often. The ideal-free math said players should spread so each room's payoff per person was equal.

College students played in groups of four. The game ran for 40 minutes while the computer logged every move and point.

Players crowded the rich rooms too much. The result was undermatching — the rich rooms ended up paying less per person than the lean ones.

The gap stayed the same in both the one-choice-at-a-time and free-roam versions. People followed the 'good enough' rule called melioration: go where the momentary rate feels better, even if it hurts the group.

Eisler (1984) saw the same melioration in pigeons years earlier. Birds pecked the richer key even when it dropped their total food. The new study shows humans fall into the same trap.

Winett et al. (1991) found humans can learn to maximize when the schedule gives clear feedback. Here, feedback was noisy, so players stuck with simple melioration. The tasks differ, but both warn that schedule clarity decides whether people match or maximize.

Madden et al. (2003) later used energy-budget rules to predict when humans gamble on risky delays. Together, the three papers build a line: organisms use quick rules, not perfect math, when time and information are tight.

If your clients work in groups — classrooms, vocational crews, peer tutoring — watch for melioration. Kids may flock to the 'easy' station until rewards thin out. You can fix this by tightening feedback: post each station's hourly payoff, rotate roles, or add brief extinction bursts in rich spots so the 'feel' of reward drops fast. Small schedule tweaks can nudge the group closer to fair and efficient use of time and reinforcers.