The general matching law describes choice on concurrent variable-interval schedules of wheel-running reinforcement.
The matching law applies to exercise: animals divide their running time exactly as they would food-based choices.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Scientists let rats choose between two running wheels.
Each wheel paid off with a different VI schedule.
The team tracked time spent and wheel spins.
They wanted to know if the matching law works for exercise as a reinforcer.
What they found
Rats matched.
Relative time on each wheel tracked the relative payoff rate.
After fixing a small response-bias hiccup, lever presses matched too.
Wheel-running acts like food or water: the law holds.
How this fits with other research
Henson et al. (1979) showed pigeons also match, but with food pellets.
Same rule, new reinforcer — the law is general.
PREMACK et al. (1963) showed that taking running away makes rats eat more.
That early hint that running is reinforcing sets the stage for W et al.
Fontes et al. (2025) throws in a twist: when punishment enters the mix, choice shifts in ways the old models miss.
Together the story is: matching works for pure reinforcement, but add punishment and you need newer rules.
Why it matters
If a client loves movement — jogging, trampolines, swings — you can treat that activity as a reinforcer.
Set up two options, vary the payoff rates, and watch time allocation to check if your reinforcement plan is balanced.
No food needed, just motion.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Offer two playground activities on VI schedules, time the child on each, and see if time split matches the payoff rate.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Six male Wistar rats were exposed to concurrent variable-interval schedules of wheel-running reinforcement. The reinforcer associated with each alternative was the opportunity to run for 15 s, and the duration of the changeover delay was 1 s. Results suggested that time allocation was more sensitive to relative reinforcement rate than was response allocation. For time allocation, the mean slopes and intercepts were 0.82 and 0.008, respectively. In contrast, for response allocation, mean slopes and intercepts were 0.60 and 0.03, respectively. Correction for low response rates and high rates of changing over, however, increased slopes for response allocation to about equal those for time allocation. The results of the present study suggest that the two-operant form of the matching law can be extended to wheel-running reinforcement. 'I'he effects of a low overall response rate, a short Changeover delay, and long postreinforcement pausing on the assessment of matching in the present study are discussed.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2001 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2001.75-299