Matching in concurrent variable-interval avoidance schedules.

Two rats lived in a chamber with two levers. Each lever postponed shocks on its own variable-interval schedule.

The researchers varied how often each lever could stop a shock. They recorded which lever the rat chose and for how long.

The rats’ time and responses on each lever matched the shock-avoidance rates. More available avoidance on the left lever meant more left-lever work.

The matching law held even when the payoff was “less shock” instead of “more food.”

Catania et al. (1966) showed that longer equal RS=SS intervals cut shock rates in single-lever avoidance. Frederiksen et al. (1978) moved from one lever to two and still saw orderly data, proving the earlier parametric rules still apply when the animal can switch.

Schroeder et al. (1969) found matching with human eye movements under concurrent VI food schedules. The new study swaps eye moves for rat levers and food for shock removal, giving the same straight-line fit—an across-species, across-reinforcer replication.

Attwood et al. (1988) taught rats to jump vertically to avoid shock. Together with the lever data, we now know matching works no matter what response keeps the shock away.

If your client has two ways to escape or avoid a task, count how often each route works. The matching law predicts the child will split effort in the same ratio. You can then enrich the safer, skillful route so it “pays” more and slowly tilt the child’s choice toward it.