Matching theory and induction explain operant performance
Pigeon study refines matching theory by folding in induction—extinction bursts are now predictable, not noise.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Four pigeons pecked keys for food on variable-interval schedules. The team then switched some birds to extinction and others to ratio schedules. They tracked every peck to see how reinforcement, or its removal, shaped ongoing behavior.
The goal was to test new math that blends matching theory with response induction.
What they found
Pecking kept going even after food stopped. The birds’ response patterns matched the new equations better than old matching-law formulas.
Induction helped explain why pecking persisted during extinction.
How this fits with other research
McSweeney (1975) and Neef et al. (1978) already showed pigeons match response rates to reinforcement rates. Baum et al. (2020) keep the matching law but add induction to cover extinction bursts.
Wesp et al. (1981) saw contrast when food was response-independent. The 2020 model now predicts both contrast and induction with one set of equations.
Clark et al. (1977) found ratio schedules push faster pecking than VI. The new math still fits those older rate differences, so the update extends, rather than replaces, prior data.
Why it matters
If you run thinning or extinction programs, expect brief response flare-ups. The updated equations give you a ruler to gauge whether the burst is normal induction or a sign to adjust the plan. Plain takeaway: watch the pattern, not just the rate.
The math is for pigeons now, but the logic travels: reinforcement history keeps influencing behavior even after the payoff stops.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →During extinction, count responses for two extra minutes; a small uptick is likely induction, not failure.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Matching theory is a general framework for understanding allocation of behavior among activities. It applies to choice in concurrent schedules and was extended to single schedules by assuming that other unrecorded behavior competes with operant behavior. Baum and Davison (2014) found that the competing activities apparently are induced by the "reinforcers" (phylogenetically important events, e.g., food) according to power functions. Combined with power-function induction, matching theory provides new equations with greater explanatory power. Four pigeons were exposed to conditions in which 7 different schedules of food delivery were presented within each experimental session. We replicated earlier results with variable-interval schedules: (a) a negatively accelerated increase of peck rate as food rate increased in the low range of food rates; (b) an upturn in pecking at higher rates; and (c) a downturn in pecking at extremely high food rates. When the contingency between pecking and food was removed, the food continued to induce pecking, even after 20 sessions with no contingency. A ratio schedule inserted in place of 1 variable-interval schedule maintained peck rates comparable to peck rates maintained by short interval schedules. We explained the results by fitting equations that combined matching theory, competition, and induction.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jeab.583