Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable interval variable ratio?
Matching on mixed interval-ratio schedules can cost the learner reinforcers, so check the earned rate, not just the response ratio.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team put pigeons on two keys at once. One key gave grain on a variable-interval schedule. The other gave grain on a variable-ratio schedule.
They let the birds choose freely for many sessions. They recorded every peck and every reinforcer.
What they found
The birds matched their pecks to the pay-off ratio. That sounds good, but it was not smart.
By matching, the pigeons lost about sixty reinforcers every hour. A maximizer would have taken the richer key far more often.
How this fits with other research
Davison et al. (1984) looked at the same VI-VR setup. They say the birds may only look like they are matching. The schedule itself can push the numbers that way.
Green et al. (1999) ran VI-VR with rats. The rats took quick, short visits to the lean side. Their overall pattern was closer to maximizing than to matching.
Brown et al. (1988) add another twist. They show that delay discounting and how the choices are framed can make matching and maximizing live together. The 1979 loss may not mean the birds are dumb; it may mean the test was too simple.
Why it matters
If you run concurrent schedules in a classroom or clinic, do not assume matching is good. Watch what the client actually earns. A quick bias check: give more trials on the richer side and see if responding jumps. That small tweak can raise reinforcement rate and cut wasted responses.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count how many reinforcers your client actually earns on each concurrent option in one session, then shift more trials to the richer side.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Four pigeons on concurrent variable interval, variable ratio approximated the matching relationship with biases toward the variable interval when time spent responding was the measure of behavior and toward the variable ratio when frequency of pecking was the measure of behavior. The local rates of responding were consistently higher on the variable ratio, even when there was overall preference for the variable interval. Matching on concurrent variable interval, variable ratio was shown to be incompatible with maximization of total reinforcement, given the observed local rates of responding and rates of alternation between the schedules. Furthermore, it was shown that the subjects were losing reinforcements at a rate of about 60 per hour by matching rather than maximizing.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1979 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1979.31-209