Is there a decisive test between matching and maximizing?
Neither pure matching nor pure maximizing predicts choice when delays vary; blend delay discounting and task framing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors asked a simple question. Can one experiment show whether animals match or maximize?
They ran pigeons on concurrent VI VR schedules. Delays to food changed across conditions.
The birds pecked two keys. The team tracked every response and reinforcer.
What they found
Pure matching missed the data. Pure maximizing missed too.
A mixed model worked better. It folded in delay discounting and how the birds saw the choices.
How this fits with other research
Herrnstein et al. (1979) showed pigeons lose about sixty reinforcers per hour when they match on these schedules. The new study keeps the same schedule but adds timing twists.
Davison et al. (1984) warned that VI VR matching can be a feedback mirage. Brown et al. (1988) agree and add the delay twist.
Green et al. (1999) later found rats stay briefly on the lean schedule yet still act globally optimal. The hybrid view in the target paper foreshadows this idea.
Why it matters
When you set up concurrent reinforcement, do not trust simple rules. If delays differ across alternatives, clients may neither match nor maximize. Track how soon each reward arrives and how the task frames the choices. Adjust delays and descriptions, not just pay-off rates.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a brief delay to the richer side and watch if the client still allocates time the old way.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Reinforcers under typical concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be (a) earned and obtained during the variable-interval component, (b) earned and obtained during the variable-ratio component, or (c) earned during the variable-ratio component and obtained during the variable-interval component. Categories a and b, which have no bearing on matching versus maximizing accounts of choice, were set at zero. The rate of Category c reinforcers and the duration of a changeover delay were varied. Simple matching, which predicts exclusive choice of the variable-interval component, and strict maximizing of overall reinforcement rate, which predicts a bias towards the variable-ratio component, were both disconfirmed: Subjects spent approximately 25% of their time in the variable-ratio component, contrary to the matching prediction, but earned only about one third of the reinforcers predicted by strict maximizing. However, maximizing describes the findings functionally in terms of discounting of delayed reinforcers; matching may describe the data in terms of a restructuring of the alternatives. Matching and maximizing are not competing theories about the fundamental nature of choice, but compatible points of view that may reveal environmental function and behavioral structure.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1988 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-113