The applied importance of research on the matching law.
The matching law is ready for clinical use, and later studies give you trial-level and time-weighted upgrades.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sayers et al. (1995) wrote an essay, not an experiment. They looked at rat and human data that follow the matching law. The goal was to see if those lab numbers could guide real-world choice work with people.
What they found
The essay says the matching law is almost ready for prime time. Basic studies from animals and simple human tasks line up well enough to start using the law outside the lab.
How this fits with other research
Stüttgen et al. (2024) took the idea further. They tracked single-trial choices in perceptual tasks and showed a trial-level matching law predicts shifts better than old fixed models.
WFrazier et al. (2023) also built on the essay. They added a time weight to the matching law to explain why extinction bursts happen and how to soften them.
Rapport et al. (1996) gave the essay quick backup. One year later they showed that shorter sessions make animals under-match, a parametric detail the essay said was missing.
Why it matters
You now have a roadmap. Start with the plain matching law to see how reinforcement splits a client’s time across tasks. If behavior surges during extinction, borrow WW et al.’s time-weight tweak and raise reinforcement for alternate responses first. For rapid choice swings, think trial-by-trial like Stüttgen et al. The 1995 essay was the call; these later papers hand you the tools.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count the last 20 responses in each concurrent task, compute the response and reinforcement ratios, and see if they match—then adjust reinforcer rates to steer the split.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this essay, we evaluate the applied implications of two articles related to the matching law and published in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, May 1994. Building on Mace's (1994) criteria for increasing the applied relevance of basic research, we evaluate the applied implications of basic research studies. Research by Elsmore and McBride (1994) and Savastano and Fantino (1994) involve an extension of the behavioral model of choice. Elsmore and McBride used rats as subjects, but arranged a multioperant environment that resembles some of the complex contingencies of human behavior. Savastino and Fantino used human subjects and extended the matching law to ratio and interval contingencies. These experiments contribute to a growing body of knowledge on the matching law and its relevance for human behavior.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1995 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1995.28-237