Overconsumption as a function of how individuals make choices: A paper in honor of Howard Rachlin's contributions to psychology
Bundle reinforcers so the healthy option becomes the richest minute-to-minute payoff, not the forbidden one.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Heyman (2023) wrote a theory paper. He asked why people keep eating, drinking, or scrolling even when they say they want to stop.
Instead of blaming weak willpower, he used the matching law. The law says we pick the option that gives the most immediate payoff per minute.
What they found
The paper argues that overconsumption is normal. It happens because the matching law guides choice better than perfect maximizing.
In simple words: the richest reward wins the moment, even if it hurts us later.
How this fits with other research
Older lab work backs the idea. Thompson (1975) showed adults divide their time exactly as the matching law predicts. Pierce et al. (1983) reviewed dozens of human studies and reached the same verdict.
One animal study seems to disagree. Wallander et al. (1983) found pigeons switched toward the choice that paid both schedules best, a sign of maximizing. The clash is only skin-deep: birds, not people, were tested. Humans rarely show clean maximizing.
Furrebøe et al. (2017) extend the story. They say behavior-analysis tools can turn “irrational” consumer habits into changeable contingencies, giving BCBAs practical levers.
Why it matters
If matching drives overconsumption, stop fighting willpower. Rearrange the choice set instead. Bundle a smaller, quick reward with a larger, slower one so the bundled package becomes the richest minute-to-minute payoff. Try it next session with token boards, response cost, or timed access to treats.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Offer a small immediate reward (song clip) only if the client first accepts a bite of veggies; the bundle now beats either item alone.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Howard Rachlin's widely influential behavioral economic approach to self-control and related issues provides the model for this submission. The topic is overconsumption. Current human consumption levels are unsustainable. Explanations typically focus on societal factors, such as the seductive power of advertising and/or misguided tax policies. However, the effectiveness of these factors depends on the degree to which individuals are susceptible to the message: "consume more." Humans are not blank slates. This paper argues that how individuals frame their choices establishes the susceptibility to overconsume. According to economic theory, consumers frame their options as bundles, composed of different combinations of the available items and activities. This leads to maximizing. In experiments, participants tend to frame their options as "either-or" choices. This leads to the matching law. Mathematical models of concurrent schedule choice procedures show that (1) the matching law implies overconsumption of the most preferred option and (2) that individuals will persist in preferring their favorite option even when doing so reduces overall reward rates. Given that the matching law better describes how individuals choose than does maximizing, the mathematical models of widely used choice procedures help explain why efforts to increase consumption have been more influential than efforts to control consumption.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jeab.821