Maximizing versus matching on concurrent variable-interval schedules.
Pigeons follow the matching law even on brand-new time-based schedules, not simple maximization.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers tested pigeons on a new time-based schedule. Birds could peck two keys. Each key paid off on its own timer.
The timers ran even when birds pecked the other key. This is different from standard schedules where timers pause.
Scientists wanted to see if birds would maximize food or match their choices to payoff rates.
What they found
The pigeons matched their choices to payoff rates. They did not pick the richer key every time.
Birds followed the matching law even on this new schedule type. Their behavior looked like standard VI results.
How this fits with other research
Aragona et al. (1975) showed pigeons maximize on ratio schedules. The new study used time schedules. This explains the different results.
Macdonald et al. (1973) found matching on regular VI schedules. The 1992 study shows matching holds even when timers keep running.
Davison et al. (1989) already showed pigeons don't just maximize overall food rate. The new study adds another nail to that idea.
Thompson (1975) found humans also match their time like pigeons. The law works across species and schedule tweaks.
Why it matters
When you set up choice programs, don't assume clients will always pick the richest option. The matching law predicts they'll spread responses based on payoff rates, not just chase maximum reward. This holds true even with tricky schedule designs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Check if your client's choices match payoff rates across options rather than maximizing one rich choice
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Maximization and matching predictions were examined for a time-based analogue of the concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedule. One alternative was a variable interval whose time base operated relatively independent of the schedule chosen, and the other was a discontinuous variable interval for which timing progressed only when selected. Pigeons switched between schedules by pecking a changeover key. The maximization hypothesis predicts that subjects will show a bias toward the discontinuous variable interval and undermatching; however the obtained results conformed closely to the predictions of the matching law. Finally, a quantitative comparison was made of the bias and sensitivity estimates obtained in published concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio analogue studies. Results indicated that only the ratio-based analogue of the concurrent variable interval variable ratio studied by Green, Rachlin, and Hanson (1983) produced significant bias toward the variable-ratio alternative and undermatching, as predicted by reinforcement maximization.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-325