Davison and McCarthy - 1988 - Matching Law - A Research Review

PSYCHOLOGY LIBRARY EDITIONS:
COGNITIVE SCIENCE
Volume 8
THE MATCHING LAW

THE MATCHING LAW
A Research Review
MICHAEL DAVISON AND DIANNE MCCARTHY

First published in 1988 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
This edition first published in 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 1988 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-138-19163-1 (Set)

ISBN: 978-1-315-54401-4 (Set) (ebk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-19427-4 (Volume 8) (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-63891-1 (Volume 8) (ebk)
Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but
points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome
correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.
THE
MATCHING
LAW
A RESEARCH REVIEW
MICHAEL DAVISON
DIANNE MCCARTHY
University of Auckland, New Zealand
\t£X LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

1988 Hillsdale, New Jersey Hove and London
Copyright © 1988 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part o f this book may be reproduced in
any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other
means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

365 Broadway
Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Davison, Michael (Michael C.)

The matching law.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
I. Psychometrics. 2. Matching theory I. McCarthy,
Dianne. II. Title
BF39.D 324 1987 150.72 87-15544
ISBN 0-90959-923-7
Printed in the United States o f America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
Preface ..................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgments .................................................................................... ix
1. Historical Antecedents ................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Initial quantifications ........................................................................ 7
1.3 Summary ............................................................................................. 11
1.4 Some further developments ........................................................... 11
1.5 Time allocation ................................................................................ 12
1.6 Summary ............................................................................................. 13
1.7 Some other independent variables ................................................. 14
2. The Strict Matching Law ............................................................... 16

2.1 Herm stein’s Equations .................................................................... 16
2.2 Different operants ............................................................................. 19
2.3 Different reinforcers ......................................................................... 20
2.4 Fitting H erm stein’s hyperbola ........................................................ 22
2.5 Concurrent-schedule equations ...................................................... 24
2.6 A note on curve fitting and experimental design ...................... 25
2.7 Replications ....................................................................................... 27
2.8 A discourse on parameter estimates ............................................. 28
3. Herrnstein’s Equations, Multiple Schedules, and Empirical

Research .......................................................................................... 31
3.1 Strict matching and multiple-schedule performance ................. 31
iii
iv CONTENTS
3.2 The logic of H erm stein’s multiple-schedule equations ........... 32

3.3 H erm stein’s equations: Empirical data ........................................ 35
3.4 Strict matching and concurrent schedules .................................. 38
3.5 H erm stein’s equations and multiple schedules: Contrast ........ 40
3.6 Component duration in multiple schedules ................................. 42
3.7 Deprivation in multiple schedules ................................................. 43
3.8 Overall comments on H erm stein’s model ................................... 45
4. Generalized Matching ................................................................... 48

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 48
4.2 Early empirical research on generalized matching ..................... 52
4.3 W hat is the matching law? ............................................................. 55
4.4 The concatenated generalized matching law ............................... 58
4.5 Dimensions of expenm ents .............................................................. 59
5. Quantitative Methods .................................................................... 63

5.1 About linear regression ..................................................................... 63
5.2 Assumptions of least-squares linear regression .......................... 64
5.3 Least-squares regression: Procedure .............................................. 66
5.4 Interpreting the summary statistics in parametric regression .. 68
5.5 Nonparametric regression ................................................................ 69
5.6 Structural relations ............................................................................ 73
5.7 Some other useful statistical procedures ....................................... 74
5.8 Two related samples, ordinal measurement ................................ 74
5.9 Many related samples, at least ordinal measurement ................ 77
5.10 A nonparametric test for trend ......................................................... 78
6. Concurrent-Schedule Research I: Reinforcer Parameters ........ 80

6.1 Reinforcer-frequency ratios .............................................................. 80
6.2 Overall reinforcer rates ..................................................................... 86
6.3 Reinforcer amount and duration ..................................................... 88
6.4 Quality of reinforcers ..................................................................... 92
6.5 Reinforcer delay ................................................................................ 96
7. Concurrent-Schedule Research II: Schedule Types .................. 99

7.1 Caveat .................................................................................................. 99
7.2 Concurrent FR FR, VR VR, and FR VR performance ............. 100
7.3 Concurrent FR VI performance ...................................................... 103
7.4 Concurrent FI FI performance ........................................................ 104
7.5 Concurrent FI VI performance ...................................................... 105
7.6 Concurrent VI VR performance ..................................................... 106
7.7 Concurrent FI FR performance ...................................................... 106
7.8 Concurrent DRL DRL performance ............................................... 107
CONTENTS V
7.9 Concurrent VI VT performance .................................................... 108

7.10 More than two concurrently available schedules ...................... 109
7.11 Response parameters ....................................................................... 113
8. Concurrent-Schedule Research III: Miscellany .......................... 120

8.1 Transitions and the effects of previous conditions .................... 120
8.2 Continuous concurrent-schedule performance............................... 127
8.3 Punishment ......................................................................................... 129
8.4 Avoidance .......................................................................................... 132
8.5 Melioration ......................................................................................... 135
8.6 Changing over .................................................................................. 139
8.7 Stimulus effects ................................................................................ 150
9. Multiple-Schedule Research .......................................................... 152

9.1 Effects of component reinforcer rates ......................................... 152
9.2 A note on measurement . . . '. ........................................................... 159
9.3 Effects of absolute component duration ...................................... 161
9.4 Deprivation effects ........................................................................... 166
9.5 Reinforcer amount ........................................................................... 169
9.6 Stimulus effects in multiple schedules ......................................... 171
9.7 Effects of component-response requirements.... ............................ 173
9.8 Continuous multiple-schedule performance ................................ 174
9.9 Theory of multiple-schedule performance .................................. 177
9.10 Chain-schedule performance ......................................................... 183
9.11 Summary of multiple-schedule research ...................................... 184
10. Concurrent-Chain Performance ................................................... 185

10.1 Basic procedure ................................................................................ 185
10.2 Measurement in concurrent-chain performances ........................ 186
10.3 History and development of concurrent-chain research ............. 188
10.4 Variants of concurrent-chain procedures .................................... 191
10.5 Terminal-link effects and generalized-mean analyses ............... 193
10.6 Initial-link effects ............................................................................ 198
10.7 Transitivity and functional equivalence ........................................ 203
10.8 Effects of responding in the terminal links ................................. 204
10.9 Choice between chained and tandem schedules ........................ 206
10.10 Combinations of independent variables ........................................ 210
10.11 Generalized matching and concurrent-chain performance ........ 212
10.12 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 215
11. Matching Models of Signal Detection .......................................... 216

11.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 216
11.2 The standard Yes-No detection experiment ................................ 217
Vi CONTENTS
11.3 Signal detection as matching ........................................................ 219

11.4 Matching models for the standard discrete-trials signal-
detection procedure ......................................................................... 220
11.5 Stimulus discriminability ................................................................. 225
11.6 Stimulus discriminability and reinforcers for errors ................. 231
11.7 Response bias ................................................................................... 233
11.8 The free-operant signal-detection procedure ................................ 239
11.9 Stimulus discriminability in free-operant detection ................... 240
11.10 Stimulus and bias functions in free-operant detection ............. 243
11.11 Implications for stimulus-control research .................................. 247
12. For the future .................................................................................. 249
References .................................................................................................. 255
Index 273
PREFACE
The purpose of this book is to present a coherent summary of some 30 years’

research on the way in which animals and humans distribute their behavior
between alternative sources of reinforcement. There are three rasons why this
book is needed. First, recent developments in the theory of behavior allocation
have often only partly accessed the empirical database that is the subject of these
theories. We hope this book will lead to the use of a wider range of empirical
results in the developing and testing of theories. Second, both researchers and
students need a general source of information from which to gain an understand
ing of the scope of research on behavior allocation. At present, none is available.
Third, a text is needed that describes the techniques of experimental design and
data analysis in this area. To this end, we have provided a chapter detailing what
we consider to be the most appropriate statistical procedures. In addition, we
have interweaved design considerations and research results throughout the
book. The general approach taken here is empirical, because the various results
at the data level will, by and large, remain stable and unchanging. These data
have allowed the formulation of quite general quantitative summaries such as the
matching laws. Although such descriptions are discussed in detail here, we have
not dealt with the diverse theories that have been offered at a more fundamental
level to explain the regularities in the data and in the quantitative summaries—
relating all of the theories to all of the data must be the subject of a future work.
Michael Davidson
Dianne McCarthy
vii
Acknowledgments
Numerous people have contributed to this book in many different ways. John A.
Nevin has been both a supportive and a critical colleague to us for several years,
and many thanks are due to him for maintaining our motivation and for critically
reading a version of this book. Particular thanks are due to Douglas Elliffe and
Brent Alsop, who critically read and edited this work throughout its preparation.
We also thank, as a group, the students and staff who have worked in our
laboratory over the last 15 years. We would particularly like to acknowledge the
stimulation of Peter E. Jenkins, who spent over a year with us as a Postdoctoral
Fellow, and who contributed greatly to our research with his quick and sure grasp
of what we were trying to achieve.
Finally, we thank John Milkins and John Tull, who expertly and lovingly
cared for our experimental subjects since 1969, and who have recently retired.
W ithout these people, and others too numerous to mention, this book could
not have been written.
ix
HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
1
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Beyond the collection o f uniform relationships lies the need for a formal
representation o f the data reduced to a minimal number o f terms. A theoretical
construction may yield greater generality than any assemblage o f facts. But such a
construction will not refer to another dimensional system and will not, therefore,
fall within our present definition [of theory]. It will not stand in the way o f our
search for functional relations because it will arise only after relevant variables
have been found and studied. Though it may be difficult to understand, it will not
be easily m isunderstood....
We do not seem to be ready for a theory in this sense. At the moment we make little
effective use o f empirical, let alone rational, equations. A few o f the present curves
could have been fairly closely fitted. But the most elementary preliminary research
shows that there are many relevant variables, and until their importance has been
experimentally determined, an equation which allow s for them will have so many
arbitrary constants that a good fit will be a matter o f course and cause for very little
satisfaction. (Skinner, 1950, pp. 215-216)
Skinner (1956) related how, on a Saturday, he ran short of food pellets for the
rats that he was training. To maintain the experiment, he decided to reward the
rats once every minute, rather than for each response. Over the weekend, the
behavior changed and then stabilized, showing a different but very regular
pattern. For any scientist, an orderly pattern of results immediately suggests a
fruitful vein of research, and Skinner naturally followed up his finding—
discovering the schedules of reinforcement, which were fully described and
empirically investigated by Ferster and Skinner (1957). Reinforcers for behavior
1
2 1. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
could be made contingent on either the passage of time (interval schedules) or on

the numbers of responses emitted {ratio schedules). The times, or the number of
responses required, could be fixed or variable. Each combination of these
variables produced an invariant pattern on a cumulative recorder, each different
in some respects from the others. When fixed numbers of responses were
required (Fixed-Ratio, or FR, schedules), there was a pause in responding after
each reinforcer, followed by a sharp transition to a high and constant rate that
was maintained until the next reinforcer was obtained— the FR break-and-run
pattern. When a fixed time had to elapse before a response could be reinforced
(Fixed-Interval, or FI, schedules), the pattern was similar, but the transition
between pausing and responding was gradual— the FI scallop. When either a
variable time had to elapse, or a variable number of responses had to be emitted
{Variable-Interval, or VI, schedules or Variable-Ratio, or VR, schedules),
animals responded at a high and relatively constant rate with few periods of
pausing. But VR schedules engendered generally higher response rates than did
equivalent VI schedules. All these patterns were, by and large, independent of
the overall times or numbers of responses required, of the species, of the type of
response required, of deprivation level, of the type of reinforcer, and of many
other possible variables. Here, then, was a set of invariant patterns with very
wide generality. Different patterns were shown even in extinction after training
on each of the schedules.
Psychologists immediately understood that the invariant patterns described by
Ferster and Skinner (1957) were important to their science. Research turned to
the analysis of the relations between parts of the patterns and various independent
variables. For instance, it was shown that the pause duration in FR performance
was directly related to the number of responses required (Felton & Lyon, 1966),
and the pause in FI performance was directly related to the interval length
(Schneider, 1969). Using the more developed sciences as their models, research
ers began the attempt to write equations for the quantitative relations between
independent-variable values and parts of the behavior patterns. Some of these
quantifications were quite successful, but few had any great generality over
different procedures.
Skinner (1950) noted an interesting quantitative invariance. Skinner trained
pigeons to emit two responses on two reinforcer schedules that were available
simultaneously (a concurrent schedule). Then he simultaneously removed the
reinforcers for both responses, and found that, as the behaviors ceased, they
continued to be emitted in the same ratio as during reinforced training. The
importance of this finding is more than just the invariance itself— it is the
discovery that a different sort of measurement (the ratio of two response rates,
rather than each rate individually) provided the invariance. It is obvious now, of
course, that taking the ratio of two simultaneous measures is most beneficial—
it reduces the effects of any concomitant or confounding variables that affect
both performances. The invariance of the behavior ratio during extinction
1.1a. THE TWO-KEY CONCURRENT-SCHEDULE PROCEDURE 3
reported by Skinner, however, seemed to have no immediate or great effect on

the behavior of psychologists.
Ferster and Skinner (1957) also reported data on performance on concurrently
available schedules, but since they were still concerned mainly with descriptive
regularities they discussed the patterns of behavior controlled by these schedules,
rather than looking more closely at quantitative measures. Findley (1958)
continued the descriptive analysis of concurrent schedules. It was not until 1961
that Hermstein discovered a quantitative relation between responding and
reinforcers in concurrent schedules and effectively began the quantitative
analysis of behavior. Suddenly, the science of behavior could move into the sorts
of quantitative analyses that, until then, had been the characteristic of only one
area of psychology— psychophysics. H erm stein’s report provoked a flurry of
research activity that still continues to grow.
In this book, we first trace the development of the strict matching law,
culminating in H erm stein’s (1970) statement of the quantitative law of effect.
We then summarize the research that discovered and documented deviations
from the strict matching law, and its replacement by the generalized matching
law (Baum, 1974). We then show how the generalized matching law provides a
coherent description of performance on various combinations of concurrent
schedules, response parameters, and reinforcer parameters; how it describes
performance on successive (multiple) as well as simultaneous (concurrent)
schedules; how punishment and avoidance effects may be understood; and how
it may help us to account for choice between periods of access to schedules
(concurrent chains). Finally, we show how the insights gained from the
generalized matching law have been used to incorporate stimulus control into the
quantitative law of effect and to account for performance in signal-detection
paradigms.
As we have mentioned, the ideas underlying the matching law came initially
from studies of performance on concurrent schedules. In such paradigms, two or
more reinforcer schedules are simultaneously made available to a subject, and,
at least until recently, the two or more operant classes that may be emitted have
been clearly differentiated. For instance, two schedules may be arranged on two
spatially separated response keys (manipulanda), or they may be made available
on a single manipulandum, signaled by two distinctive discriminative stimuli,
with access to the two schedules controlled by responses to another spatially
separated key. These two procedures are called, respectively, the two-key
procedure and the switching-key, or changeover-key, or Findley, procedure.
Performance on these two procedures appears to be functionally identical.
1.1a. The Two-Key Concurrent-Schedule Procedure

Two (or more) manipulanda are made available to the subject. Responses on
each of these are reinforced according to specified schedules. This procedure is
LLi
KEYS:
or LEFT RIGHT
w (w)
0 8 VI X s VI Y s
^cr
h -C L
KEYS:
MAIN SWITCHING
W J
>-
LLI VI X s 1 RESP
f UJ
W
1°
8 0 VI Y s 1 RESP
— o
So:
l/l Q_
R W
VI X s
FIG. 1.1. Diagrams of the two-key concurrent-schedule procedure (upper) and the Findley, or
changeover-key, concurrent-schedule procedure (lower). The letters within the circles refer to the
colors presented on the keys. See text for further explanation.
diagrammed in the upper part of Fig. 1.1. The subject (we will assume a pigeon)
is faced with two manipulanda (response keys), which may be illuminated any
color but are shown as white in Fig. 1.1. Responding on the left key provides
reinforcers on a VI x-s schedule, and responding on the right key provides
reinforcers on a VI y-s schedule. During reinforcer delivery, both keys are
usually blacked out, and responses on them are ineffective. If the schedules are
interval schedules, they continue timing even when the subject is not responding
on that manipulandum. If they are ratio schedules, each response on one
manipulandum contributes only to the count on the associated schedule. The
1.1b. THE CHANGEOVER-KEY 5
subject is free to change over between the schedules at any time, but changeovers
may be penalized by reinforcers being unavailable immediately after the
changeover (the changeover delay, Hermstein, 1961; see Section 1.2; or the
changeover ratio, see Section 1.1b). In the two-key procedure, the changeover
delay normally starts from the first response on a manipulandum after responses
have been emitted on the other manipulandum. All responses are counted as
being part of the performance on the schedules (that is, responses that are
changeovers are not deducted from the schedules’ totals). When time allocation
is measured, the allocation to one schedule’s total normally starts with the first
response on a manipulandum and ends with the first response on the other
manipulandum.
1.1b. The Changeover-Key or Findley Concurrent-

Schedule Procedure
This procedure (Findley, 1958) is shown in the lower part of Fig. 1.1. Two
manipulanda are available to the subject— the switching manipulandum and the
main manipulandum. Each switching response changes the discriminative
stimulus (red or green key in Fig. 1.1) and its associated schedule arranged on
the main manipulandum (VI x s and VI y s in Fig. 1.1). All reinforcers are
obtained for responding on the main manipulandum. Usually, a switching
response (on the right, white key in Fig. 1.1) also starts a changeover delay
during which time reinforcers are unavailable. Effective switches may, or may
not, be allowed during the changeover delay, and switches emitted during the
changeover delay may reset the delay duration. Sometimes a number of
switching responses, rather than a single response, is required before the
schedules and discriminative stimuli change. This constitutes a changeover ratio.
Responses on the main manipulandum may, or may not, be allowed during the
changeover ratio. Switching responses do not contribute to the measured
allocation of responses on the schedules. Time allocation on the two schedules
is normally measured from one effective switch to the subsequent effective
switch. But the time during the changeover performance often does not
contribute to the times spent on the schedules if a changeover-ratio procedure is
used. If interval schedules are arranged, they time even when the discriminative
stimulus associated with that schedule is not presented. With ratio schedules,
only responses emitted during the presentation of the discriminative stimulus
contribute to the correlated schedule requirement.
1.1c. Scheduling of Reinforcers

Another major procedural dimension is concerned with whether there is any
dependency between the delivery of reinforcers from the available sources. With
independent scheduling, the arranging of a reinforcer, by the equipment, for one
response does not affect the availability of a reinforcer for another response.
W hen the schedule on one key sets up a reinforcer, the schedule on the other key
or keys continues timing, and may set up a reinforcer for that key or those keys
also. It is therefore possible that both keys (or all keys, if there are more than two
responses available) may have a reinforcer available at any one time. When one
of these reinforcers is collected, only the schedule associated with that reinforcer
is restarted, and the other reinforcer(s) remain available. Contrasted with this
procedure is the dependent (also termed nonindependent, interdependent, or
forced-choice) procedure. In this, when one schedule arranges a reinforcer, the
other schedule(s) stop timing until that reinforcer is collected. At this point, the
schedule from which the reinforcer was obtained is restarted, and the timing of
the intervals on the other schedule(s) continues. The dependent-scheduling
procedure ensures that the subject obtains the same distribution of reinforcers
between manipulanda as that arranged by the experimenter. Clearly, if one
response is never emitted because choice is extreme, the subject will obtain no
more reinforcers once a reinforcer is arranged for that response. The indepen-
dent-scheduling procedure does not ensure any particular distribution of rein
forcers. If choice is extreme, the subject may not take any of the nonpreferred
reinforcers. Dependent- versus independent-scheduling procedures normally
apply only to concurrent interval schedules, since a dependency on concurrent
ratio schedules will change the number of responses required for a reinforcer to
be delivered.
It is not particularly easy to capture the essence of concurrent schedules
because of the many different nuances of procedure that have been used. For
example, our description has largely focused on two-schedule concurrents, but
any number of schedules may be concurrently arranged (see Section 7.10). Most
procedural differences have not been shown to cause differential effects.
However, some, like changeover delays and changeover ratios, clearly cause
performance differences. We deal with these differences in Section 8 . 6 .
Procedures even different from those described above exist which have also been
termed “ concurrent schedules.” We stress that the name of a procedure
generally provides insufficient information for an experimental analysis. Further,
a name is certainly a very poor independent variable to manipulate in an
experiment or to use to explain an experimental result.
1.1d. Introduction Continued

As we have mentioned, initial demonstrations of concurrent-schedule perfor
mances were nonquantitative. For instance, Ferster and Skinner (1957) investi
gated concurrent VI VI, concurrent FR FI, and concurrent VI FI schedule
performances using a two-key procedure. Cumulative records showed that the
patterns of responding on each key (and thus, on each schedule) were typical of
the schedules when they were arranged nonconcurrently, except in the case of
1.2. INITIAL QUANTIFICATIONS 7
concurrent VI FI. In the latter, typical scalloping failed to develop on the key
associated with the FI schedule (but see Catania, 1962). Ferster and Skinner also
introduced the notion of the “ one-key concurrent schedule,” a procedure in
which two or more schedules are simultaneously arranged on a single key. They
used concurrent FI avoidance schedules. Research on one-key concurrent
schedules has not subsequently been common, but they are logically of interest.
For instance, a one-key concurrent VI 60-s VI 60-s schedule is nominally a VI
30-s schedule. But, if different nominal schedules are arranged on a single key,
the results may not be verbally classifiable. However, the feedback function (see
Section 7.1) may be mathematically specifiable.
Findley (1958) provided more parametric data on concurrent VI VI schedule
performance by keeping one schedule constant and varying the rate of reinforcers
provided by the other. He noted that the response rate on each key was both
increased by higher reinforcer rates on the correlated schedule and decreased by
higher reinforcer rates on the alternate schedule. He also reported that the time
spent responding on a schedule was similarly affected by the two reinforcer rates.
Findley’s major contribution was the specification of, at that time, a novel
method of arranging concurrent schedules— the changeover-key, or switching-
key, procedure, in which a response on a switching key changed the schedules
and associated stimuli on the main key (see Section 1.1b).
1.2. INITIAL QUANTIFICATIONS
Hermstein (1961) reported an experiment in which responses on two keys were

reinforced on a number of different concurrent VI VI schedules keeping the
arranged overall reinforcer rate at 1.5 reinforcers per minute. In most of his
experimental conditions, he penalized changeovers between the keys by arrang
ing that a reinforcer on one key could not be obtained, even if arranged by the
schedule, until 1.5 s had elapsed from the first peck on that key (after pecking
the other key). He termed this procedure, which requires at least two responses
to be emitted on a key if a reinforcer is to be gained, a changeover delay or COD.
Under these conditions, Hermstein noted that the percentage of responses
emitted on one key approximately equaled the percentage of reinforcers obtained
from that key— that is, the subjects matched relative frequency of responding to
relative obtained frequencies of reinforcers. Algebraically, this relation is:
(i d
B x + B2 R x + R2
where B refers to the behavior frequency and R refers to the obtained reinforcer
frequency. The subscripts refer to the two choices (e.g., responses on the two
keys). Equation 1.1 was thus termed the matching equation, but in order to
1
HEiRRNSTEIN ( 1 9 6 1 )
CO
LU .75 ■
CO
21
o
Cl_
CO
LU
cl:
.5 -
LU
> ♦BIRD 55
I— oBIRO 231
a=
_i
LU
25 - °BIRD 641
cl :
__ 1____ ____1_____
.25 .5 . 75 1
RELATIVE REINFORCERS
FIG. 1.2. Relative response rates emitted on two keys as a function of the relative rate of
reinforcers obtained from the two keys. The data are from Hermstein (1961).
differentiate it here from other similar equations we shall call it the strict
matching equation.
H erm stein’s (1961) results are shown in Fig. 1.2. The data from all three birds
fell close to the major diagonal which describes the equality in Equation 1.1.
Hermstein discussed the possibility that the matching relation was a result of the
rate of behavior being a linear function of the rate of reinforcers, i.e .,
B; = kRt ,
which, when applied to the behavior on each key, produces Equation 1.1.
However, data from performance on single schedules, and from Findley’s (1958)
experiment, did not support that notion. Thus, Hermstein concluded that the
relation between a rate of behavior and its rate of reinforcement was more likely
to be concave downward (or negatively accelerated). We return to this issue in
Chapter 2.
Hermstein (1961) also compared performance on concurrent VI VI schedules
using a changeover delay with that produced when no changeover delay was in
effect. He reported that the changeover delay substantially decreased the
frequency of switching between the two keys. He also noted that it might play a
role in the production of strict matching. A comparison of the matching
performance with and without a changeover delay for two birds on a concurrent
VI 135-s VI 270-s schedule (i.e., a relative reinforcer frequency of about 0.66)
showed that relative response measures were closer to 0.5 when no changeover
delay was arranged. These were somewhat limited data, but a later and more
1. 2 . INITIAL QUANTIFICATIONS 9
extensive set from Catania and Cutts (1963), using humans, validated the use of
the changeover delay in concurrent-schedule research. This procedure subse
quently became standard.
Research reported by Catania (1963a) supported Hermstein’s (1961) finding
of strict matching on concurrent VI VI schedules. Catania used a switching-key,
rather than a two-key, concurrent-schedule arrangement. He also compared
performance with, and without, a 2-s changeover delay. Like Hermstein, he
reported some extreme deviations from strict matching if no changeover delay
was in effect. Catania’s data also showed that the response rate on one key was
not a linear function of the reinforcer rate on that key. He offered a hyperbolic
equation to describe absolute response rates. In this equation, the response
rate on one key is increased by higher reinforcer rates on that key but is decreased
by higher reinforcer rates on the alternate key:
B, = ^ -0 8 3 • (1.2)
(B, + B 2)083
The fact that response rates on one key are a joint function of the reinforcer rates
obtained for those responses and for alternate responses has not subsequently
been doubted, but the form of the equation has been varied. Note particularly that
Equation 1.2 has no upper asymptote— as reinforcer rates increase, the response
rate continues to increase without bound. Both the constant k and the power
modifying the denominator are fitted constants. Neither seem to have any
particular psychological significance. Equation 1.2 describes strict matching
because when relative response rates are predicted, both the constant k and the
denominator cancel out:
B, IcR, . (B, + B 2)083 _ B,

B, + B 2 (B, + B 2) ° 83 <t(B, + R 2) B, + B 2
Catania (1963a) was the first to propose a total output equation, that is, an
equation that describes the total rate of all measured behavior. This was:
B, + B 2 = SB = k ( R i + B2)° 17 . (1.3)
Equation 1.3 can easily be fitted to data by plotting the logarithm of the total
response rate against the logarithm of the total reinforcer rate and fitting a
straight line. The slope of the resulting line is the value of the power in Equation
1.3 (and is also the complement of the power on the denominator in Equation
1.2). It is evident from Catania’s plot of this relation that, for all subjects except
Findley’s (1958) Bird 5, the slopes of the lines were close to 0.17, and all the
data were well fitted by straight lines.
Another important aspect of Catania’s (1963a) paper was his interpretation of
the effects of a changeover delay. He stated that this “ prevented one schedule of
reinforcement exerting accidental control over the changeover-key pecking and
the pecks maintained by the other schedule” (p. 255). This interpretation was
supported by Catania and Cutts (1963), and has remained one of the standard
interpretations of the procedural effects of changeover delays.
It has become evident from the experiments discussed so far that varying
reinforcer rates on single schedules have rather small effects on response rates
(Catania, 1963a, Equation 1.2), but the effects are much greater on concurrently
arranged schedules (Equation 1.1). In other words, concurrent VI VI schedule
performance is more sensitive to the variation of one of the reinforcer rates than
is single Vl-schedule performance. This increased sensitivity led to the
extensive use of concurrent VI VI schedules, simply because of the better
properties of the measurement. For instance, Catania (1963b) showed that
variations in reinforcer duration had little effect on the response rate on a single
VI 120-s schedule, but had a substantial effect on the response rate on one key
of a concurrent VI 120-s VI 120-s schedule. Because the total duration of food
reinforcers was constant, Catania’s (1963b) result can be taken as an example of
the strict matching of relative response rates to relative reinforcer durations:
B, Mx
(1.4)
B j + B2 Mx + M2
where M is the duration of the food presentation. Catania’s results are shown in
Fig. 1.3. The generality of the strict matching law thus, at this time, extended
across both reinforcer-rate and reinforcer-duration variations.
1
CRTRNIfl ( 1963B)
LU
I— ■75
az
C£
LU
CO
Z
o 5
d_
CO
LU
QZ
_l
LU 25
QZ •
25 .5 .75
REL. REINFORCER DURRTION
FIG. 1.3. Relative response rate as a function o f relative reinforcer duration. The data, from
Catania (1963b), have been averaged across subjects.
1.3 SUMMARY 11
1.3. SUMMARY
By 1963, the empirical fact that relative response rates closely matched relative
reinforcer rates was well substantiated and replicated. No systematic deviations
from strict matching had been reported, and the empirical matching law gained
more support from a related area— concurrent-chain schedules (see also Section
6.5 and Chapter 10). These schedules arrange concurrent VI VI schedules, but
the reinforcers are not the immediate delivery of food. Rather, completion of
each concurrent schedule produces a stimulus change that is itself associated with
a schedule of food reinforcement. These latter schedules, known as the terminal
links, or outcome phase, occur as single schedules— that is, only one terminal
link is in effect at a time, and the concurrent VI VI initial links are unavailable
during the terminal links. Autor (1960) and Hermstein (1964a) reported strict
matching between relative initial-link response rates and relative terminal-link
reinforcer rates. Reynolds (1963a) also reported strict matching on a concurrent-
chain schedule. These data sets initially seemed to support the notion of strict
matching in quite different procedures, and hence to provide increased general
ity. In the light of subsequent research (Chapter 10), however, they should not
be taken as supporting strict matching. Indeed, Hermstein (1964b) failed to find
strict matching when the terminal links were FI versus VI schedules.
1.4. SOME FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Shull and Pliskoff (1967) used switching-key concurrent VI VI schedules to

extend Herm stein’s (1961) report that changeover delays helped produce strict
matching of relative response rates to relative reinforcer rates. Using two different
(one unequal and one equal) concurrent VI VI schedule pairs, they varied the
changeover delay from 0 to 20 s. It is worth noting that with a switching-key
procedure, a 0-s changeover delay specifies a minimum of one changeover
response and one main-key response for reinforcement, whereas the two-key
procedure with a 0-s changeover delay requires a minimum of two successive
pecks to a key. The difference is not so much in the behavior of the subject, but
in the data that are collected. In the switching-key procedure, the switching
response does not add to the response totals used to assess matching. In the
two-key procedure, the switching response is counted. It is also worth noting that
no changeover delay and a 0-s changeover delay are one and the same contingency
for a switching-key procedure. They are, however, different contingencies for a
two-key procedure— no changeover delay allows the response that constitutes the
changeover to be reinforced, whereas a 0-s changeover delay requires two suc
cessive responses to a key before a reinforcer may be gained. Shull and Pliskoff
reported that, as the changeover delay was increased, relative response rates,
relative time spent responding, and relative obtained reinforcers all became more
extreme on the (unequal) concurrent VI 60-s VI 180-s schedules. For the (equal)
concurrent VI 90-s VI 90-s performance, these measures showed no consistent
trend. Given that strict matching is an equality between relative response and
relative reinforcer rates, it is evident from their data that strict matching was more
likely to result with longer changeover delays. When the changeover delays were
short, relative response rates were less extreme than relative obtained reinforcer
rates. H erm stein’s (1961) and Catania’s (1963a) findings were thus systematically
replicated and supported.
A caveat is in order here. As we see in Section 9.3, the design of this
experiment cannot discriminate between two different ways in which an equality
between relative response rates and relative reinforcer rates can occur. Shull and
Pliskoff’s (1967) results were taken as indicating that a changeover delay of
sufficient length must be provided if strict matching is to be obtained. As a
result, most subsequent studies rather unquestioningly used changeover-delay
values of, usually, between 2 and 5 s, despite the fact that even 5 s was not long
enough to produce an equality between relative response rates and relative
reinforcer rates in Shull and Pliskoff’s study. On the other hand, changeover
delays of 1.5 s and 2 s, respectively, were sufficient to obtain the equality in
H erm stein’s (1961) and Catania’s (1963a) studies.
Shull and Pliskoff’s (1967) study is notable for being the first to measure time
allocation on a concurrent schedule. They noted that relative response and
relative time measures were isomorphic and suggested that this showed that the
local response rates (i.e., the number of responses divided by the time allocated
to that schedule) were equal between the two keys. This further suggests that
subjects respond at a particular constant overall rate but distribute these
responses between the two keys via time allocation.
1.5. TIME ALLOCATION
Time-allocation measures were given major prominence in a study of concurrent

variable-time variable-time (VT VT) schedule performance by Brownstein and
Pliskoff (1968). A VT schedule simply delivers reinforcers after varying periods
of time without any response being necessary. Brownstein and Pliskoff used
switching-key concurrent schedules, allowing the subject to alternate between the
two VT schedules. They also determined an individual changeover-delay value
for each subject that was of a value sufficient to produce equality of relative time
spent responding and relative obtained reinforcer rate on a concurrent VT 60-s VT
180-s schedule. Varying the VT schedules, they found strict time-allocation
matching for all schedule combinations. Their data are replotted in Fig. 1.4.
Brownstein and Pliskoff suggested that time allocation must be a basic process
and that response allocation might be a by-product, because no superstitious
responding was noted while the animals were in the experiment.
1.6. SUMMARY 13
BROWNSTEIN &
PLISKOFF (1968)
o
75
I—
a=
CJ
o
_i
_i
a= .5
LU
2:
1—
♦BIRD 33
_i
LU
25
□ BIRD 787
a BIRD 6494
.25 .5 .75
REL. REINFORCER RATE
FIG. 1.4. Relative time spent responding as a function of relative reinforcer rate reported by
Brownstein and Pliskoff (1968). A different changeover-delay duration was arranged for each bird:
2 s for Bird 93; 7.5 s for Bird 787; and 5 s for Bird 6494.
Time-allocation matching was also the major subject of an experiment

reported by Baum and Rachlin (1969). Unlike Brownstein and Pliskoff (1968),
Baum and Rachlin used an analogue of the two-key concurrent-scheduling
procedure. A long experimental chamber with the floor divided into two halves,
each resting on microswitches, was used. Feeders situated at both ends of the
chamber operated on VT schedules when the subject was at the appropriate end
of the chamber and when a 4.25-s changeover delay had elapsed. The
time-allocation data did not include the time during which both floors were
depressed, the time during reinforcer delivery, nor the time in the changeover
delay. The exclusion of changeover-delay time is unusual in time-allocation
studies of concurrent-schedule performance. It would be expected to increase
measured time-allocation differentials between unequal schedules, as it is akin to
subtracting a constant from both of the time totals (see Section 8.6). Baum and
Rachlin varied the VT schedules over a wide range, and obtained a close
approximation to strict matching. They also argued that time allocation “ may be
more widely applicable to behavior than laws of response distribution” (p. 869).
1.6. SUMMARY
By 1969, two measures (relative response rate and relative time allocated) had
been shown to equal or match relative obtained reinforcer rates. These two
measures had usually been obtained from different experiments, but Catania
(1966) showed that both isomorphic measures could be obtained from standard
14 1. HISTORICAL ANTECE DENTS
concurrent VI VI schedule experiments. The procedure of collecting both

measures from single experiments became common from this time, allowing
ultimately a more detailed comparison of the two measures.
Generality, at this time, also extended across the two procedures for arranging
concurrent schedules, across species to a limited extent (pigeons, rats, and
humans had been used), and across reinforcers (both grain and brain stimulation
had been used). Another area of generality was also evident, but by default rather
than by explicit experimentation. The absolute reinforcer rate provided by the
schedules had not been shown to affect the degree of matching. Again, by
default, the type of response required appeared not to affect the degree of
matching, though only situations in which the same response was required on the
two concurrently available schedules had been investigated.
1.7. SOME OTHER INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

At this period in the development of the matching law, some other experiments
had been reported that also supported forms of strict matching. First, Neuringer
(1967) extensively replicated Catania’s (1963b) report of matching between
relative response rates and the relative size of reinforcers. The size of reinforcers
is often designated as reinforcer amount, A, or magnitude, M, though the
procedure most often used is to vary the duration of presentation of reinforcers.
Neuringer’s result can be written as:
Mx
B\ "1" B 2 A/] -f M 2
In the same year, Chung and Hermstein (1967) studied the effects of delay of
reinforcers on concurrent VI VI schedule performance. Reinforcers for each of
the concurrent-schedule responses were delayed by fixed times in blackout, with
the concurrent schedules unavailable during the delay. They reported that
relative response rates matched relative delays (D) to reinforcers according to the
following matching relation:
_ &2
B\ + B2 + D2
The reciprocal form of matching arises because, unlike reinforcer rate or

duration, the longer the delay the less frequently the response is emitted.
Defining the reciprocal of the delay to reinforcers as the immediacy of the
reinforcers (/ = 1/D) leads to the more usual matching form:
Bx _ /,
B\ A B 2 I\ + I 2
1.7. SOME OTHER INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 15
1
CHUNG &
HERRNSTEIN (1967)
c
LU
I— .75
ai
(H
LU
CO
z
o .5
Q_
CO
LU
(H
_l
LU 25
.25 .5 .75
REL. REINFORCER IMMEDIRCY
FIG. 1.5 Relative response rates as a function of relative imm ediacies of reinforcers.
These data w ere obtained using concurrent VI 60-s VI 60-s schedules. The delays
w ere varied between 1 and 30 s, but the 1-s delay was taken as effectively a 1.6-s
delay because the subjects took about this tim e to start eating from the food hopper
(see Chung & Herm stein, 1967).
Chung and Hermstein’s data are shown in Fig. 1.5 as a function of the relative
immediacy of reinforcers. The immediacy form of the equation asserts the
matching of relative response rates to the relative reinforcer rates in the delay
periods. It is thus the same result as Hermstein (1964a) obtained with
concurrent-chain schedules. Indeed, Chung and Hermstein’s procedure is a
concurrent-chain schedule.
Thus, the generality of strict matching had been asserted across reinforcer
delay and magnitude variation and even into the concurrent-chain procedure with
either fixed-delay or variable-interval terminal links. However, we must again
issue a caveat: Chung and Herm stein’s (1967) experiment has been replicated
and reanalyzed (Williams & Fantino, 1978). This further work shows that Chung
and H erm stein’s data were not consistent with strict matching (see Section 6.5).
Also, subsequent concurrent-chain results have consistently failed to find strict
matching to terminal-link relative reinforcer rates (Chapter 10).
The results summarized above, all of which supported strict matching (when
the changeover delay was of sufficient length), culminated in a paper by
Hermstein (1970). H erm stein’s approach to matching and behavior allocation is
the subject of Chapter 2.
REFERENCES
A inslie, G .W . (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis
o f B eh avior, 27, 485-489.
A inslie, G .W . (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory o f im pulsiveness and
impulse control. P sych ological B ulletin, 82, 463-496.
Akaike, H. (1969). Fitting autoregressive models for prediction. Annals o f the Institute o f
Statistical M athem atics, 21, 243-247.
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on
Autom atic Control, 19, 716-722.
Allen, C .M . (1981). On the exponent in the “ generalized” matching equation. Journal o f
the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 3 5 , 125-127.
A lsop, B ., & Davison, M. (1986). Preference for multiple versus mixed schedules
o f reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 45,
33-45.
Anderson, N .H . (1978). Measurement o f motivation and incentive. Behavior Research
M ethods & Instrumentation, 10, 360-375.
Autor, S.M . (1960). The strength o f conditioned reinforcers as a function o f frequency
and probability o f reinforcement. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard
University, 1960. Reprinted in Hendry, D .P. (1969). Conditioned reinforcement
(pp. 127-162). H om ew ood, IL: The Dorsey Press.
Bacotti, A .V . (1977). Matching under concurrent fixed-ratio variable-interval schedules
o f food presentation. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 2 5 , 171-182.
Barron, B ., & Davison, M .C. (1972). Performance on multiple fixed-interval schedules.
Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 17, 375-379.
Baum, W .M . (1972). Choice in a continuous procedure. Psychonom ic Science, 28,
263-265.
Baum, W .M . (1973). Time allocation and negative reinforcement. Journal o f the
Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 20, 313-322.
255
256 REFERENCES
Baum, W .M . (1974a). On two types o f deviation from the matching law: Bias and
undermatching. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 2 , 231-242.
Baum, W .M . (1974b). Choice in free-ranging wild pigeons. Scien ce, 1 8 5 , 78-79.
Baum , W .M . (1974c). Chained concurrent schedules: Reinforcement as situation transi
tion. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 2 , 91-101.
Baum , W .M . (1976). Tim e-based and count-based measurement o f preference. Journal
o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 6 , 27-35.
Baum, W .M . (1979). M atching, undermatching and overmatching in studies o f choice.
Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 32, 269-281.
Baum, W .M . (1982). Choice, changeover, and travel. Journal o f the Experim ental
A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 8 , 35-49.
Baum, W .M . (1983). M atching, statistics, and com m on sense. Journal o f the E xperi
m ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 9 , 499-501.
Baum , W .M ., & Rachlin, H .C . (1969). Choice as time allocation. Journal o f the
Bauman, R .A ., Shull, R .L ., & Brownstein, A .J. (1975). Time allocation on concurrent
schedules with asymmetrical response requirements. Journal o f the Experim ental
Beautrais, P .G ., & D avison, M .C . (1977). Response and time allocation in concurrent
second-order schedules. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 5 ,
61-69.
Blough, D ., & Blough, P. (1977). Animal psychophysics. In W .K . H onig & J.E .R .
Staddon (E ds.), H andbook o f O peran t B ehavior (pp. 514-539). Englew ood C liffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
B oelens, H ., & Kop, P .F .M . (1983). Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation o f
response alternatives. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 0 , 35-45.
Boldero, J., D avison, M ., & McCarthy, D. (1985). Reinforcer frequency and reinforcer
magnitude as biasers o f signal detection. Behavioural P rocesses, 10, 131-143.
Bouzas, A ., & Baum , W .M . (1976). Behavioral contrast o f time allocation. Journal o f
the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 5 , 179-184.
Bradley, J.V . (1968). D istribution-free statistical tests. Englewood C liffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bradshaw, C .M ., Szabadi, E ., & Bevan, P. (1976). Behavior o f humans in variable-
interval schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f
B eh avior, 2 6 , 135-141.
Bradshaw, C .M ., Szabadi, E ., & Bevan, P. (1977). Effect o f punishment on human
variable-interval performance. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 27,
275-279.
Bradshaw, C .M ., Szabadi, E ., & Bevan, P. (1978). Effects o f variable-interval
punishment on the behavior o f humans in variable-interval schedules o f monetary
reinforcement. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 2 9 , 161-166.
Bradshaw, C .M ., Szabadi, E ., & Bevan, P. (1979). The effect o f punishment on
free-operant choice behavior in humans. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f
B ehavior, 31, 71-81.
Brethower, D .M ., & Reynolds, G .S . (1962). A facilitative effect o f punishment on
unpunished behavior. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 5 , 191-199.
257
Brinker, R .P ., & Treadway, J.T. (1975). Preference and discrimination between

response-dependent and response-independent schedules o f reinforcement. Journal
o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 24, 73-77.
Brownstein, A.J. (1971). Concurrent schedules o f response-independent reinforcement:
Duration o f a reinforcing stimulus. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f
B ehavior, 15, 211-214.
Brownstein, A .J., & Pliskoff, S .S . (1968). Some effects o f relative reinforcement rate
and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules o f reinforce
ment. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 11, 683-688.
Catania, A .C . (1962). Independence o f concurrent responding maintained by interval
schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 5,
175-184.
Catania, A .C . (1963a). Concurrent performances: Reinforcement interaction and
response independence. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 6,
253-263.
Catania, A .C . (1963b). Concurrent performances: A baseline for the study o f reinforce
ment magnitude. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 6, 299-300.
Catania, A .C . (1966). Concurrent operants. In W .K . Honig (E d.), O perant behavior:
A reas o f research and application (pp. 213-270). NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Catania, A .C . (1975). Freedom and knowledge: An experimental analysis o f preference
in pigeons. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 24, 89-106.
Catania, A .C . (1980). Freedom o f choice: A behavioral analysis. In G .H . Bower (Ed.),
The psychology o f learning and m otivation (V ol. 14). NY: Academic Press.
Catania, A .C . & Cutts, D. (1963). Experimental control o f superstitious responding in
humans. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 6, 203-208.
Catania, A .C ., & Reynolds, G .S . (1968). A quantitative analysis o f the responding
maintained by interval schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental
Analysis o f Behavior, 11, 327-383.
Catania, A .C ., & Sagvolden, T. (1980). Preference for free choice over forced choice in
pigeons. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 3 4 , 77-86.
Charman, L ., & Davison, M. (1982). On the effects o f component durations and
component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental
Analysis o f Behavior, 3 7 , 417-439.
Charman, L ., & D avison, M. (1983a). On the effects o f food deprivation and component
reinforcer rates on multiple-schedule performance. Journal o f the Experim ental
Charman, L ., & Davison, M. (1983b). Undermatching and stimulus discrimination in
multiple schedules. Behaviour A nalysis L etters, 3 , 77-84.
Chung, S.-H . (1965a). Effects o f delayed reinforcement in a concurrent situation. Journal
o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 8, 439-444.
Chung, S.-H . (1965b). Effects o f effort on response rate. Journal o f the Experim ental
Chung, S .-H ., & Hermstein, R.J. (1967). Choice and delay o f reinforcement. Journal o f
the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 10, 67-74.
Clopton, B .M . (1972). Detection o f increments in noise by monkeys. Journal o f the
Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 17, 473-481.
258 REFERENCES
C ohen, I.L. (1973). A note on H erm stein’s equation. Journal o f the E xperim ental
A nalysis o f B ehavior, 19, 527-528.
Cohen, S .L . (1975). Concurrent second-order schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f the
Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 4 , 333-341.
C om m ons, M .L ., Herrnstein, R .J., & Rachlin, H. (1982) (E ds.). Q uantitative A nalyses
o f B ehavior, Vol. 11: M atching and M axim izing Accounts. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
C oom bs, C .H . (1964). A theory o f data. NY: W iley.
D avison, M .C . (1968). Reinforcement rate and im m ediacy o f reinforcement as factors in
choice. P sychonom ic Science, 10, 181-182.
D avison, M .C . (1969). Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules.
D avison, M . (1972). Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules:
Number o f com ponent intervals. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior,
17, 169-176.
D avison, M. (1974). A functional analysis o f chained fixed-interval schedule perfor
mance. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 1 , 323-330.
D avison, M .C . (1976). Preference for fixed-interval schedules: Effects o f unequal
initial-link length. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 5 , 371-376.
D avison, M , (1982). Performance in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules.
Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 7 , 81-96.
D avison, M. (1983). Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule.
Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 0 , 15-34.
D avison, M . (1987). The analysis o f concurrent-chain performance. In M .L. Com m ons,
J.E. Mazur, J.A . N evin, & H. Rachlin (E ds.), Q uantitative analyses o f behavior,
Vol. V: Effects o f delay an d o f intervening events on reinforcem ent value (pp.
225-244). H illsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
D avison, M ., & Ferguson, A . (1978). The effects o f different com ponent response
requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental
D avison, M ., & H ogsden, I. (1984). Concurrent variable-interval schedule performance:
Fixed versus m ixed reinforcer durations. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
B eh avior, 4 1 , 169-182.
D avison, M .C ., & Hunter, I.W . (1976). Performance on variable-interval schedules
arranged singly and concurrently. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior,
2 5 , 335-345.
D avison, M .C ., & Hunter, I.W . (1979). Concurrent schedules: Undermatching and
control by previous experimental conditions. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
B ehavior, 3 2 , 233-244.
D avison, M ., & Jenkins, P.E . (1985). Stimulus discriminability, contingency discrim in
ability, and schedule performance. Anim al Learning and B ehavior, 13, 77-84.
D avison, M ., & McCarthy, D . (1980). Reinforcement for errors in a signal-detection
procedure. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 4 , 35-47.
D avison, M ., & McCarthy, D . (1981). Undermatching and structural relations.
B ehaviou r A nalysis L etters, 1, 67-72.
D avison, M ., McCarthy, D ., & Jensen, C. (1985). Component probability and com po
259
nent reinforcer rate as biasers o f free-operant detection. Journal o f the Experim ental
Analysis o f B ehavior, 4 4 , 103-120.
D avison, M ., & Smith, C. (1986). Som e aspects o f preference between immediate and
delayed periods o f reinforcement. Journal o f Experim ental P sychology: Anim al
B ehavior P rocesses, 12, 291-300.
Davison, M .C ., & Tem ple, W. (1973). Preference for fixed-interval schedules: An
alternative model. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 20, 393-403.
Davison, M .C ., & Tem ple, W. (1974). Preference for fixed-interval terminal links in a
three-key concurrent-chain schedule. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
B ehavior, 22, 11-19.
D avison, M .C ., & Tustin, R .D . (1978). The relation between the generalized matching
law and signal-detection theory. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior,
2 9, 331-336.
Deluty, M .Z. (1976). Choice and the rate o f punishment in concurrent schedules. Journal
D eluty, M .Z ., & Church, R .M . (1978). Time-allocation matching between punishing
situations. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 29, 191-198.
de Villiers, P .A . (1972). Reinforcement and response-rate interaction in multiple
random-interval avoidance schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
Behavior, 18, 499-507.
de Villiers, P .A . (1974). The law o f effect and avoidance: A quantitative relationship
between response rate and shock-frequency reduction. Journal o f the Experim ental
A nalysis o f Behavior, 21, 223-235.
de Villiers, P. A. (1977). Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation o f
the law o f effect. In W .K . Honig & J.E.R . Staddon (E ds.), H andbook o f operant
behavior (pp. 233-287). Englewood C liffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
de Villiers, P .A . (1980). Toward a quantitative theory o f punishment. Journal o f the
Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 33, 15-25.
de Villiers, P. A. (1982). Toward a quantitative theory o f punishment. In M .L. Com mons,
R.J. Hermstein, & H. Rachlin (E ds.), Q uantitative analyses o f behavior. Vol. II:
M atching and m aximizing accou nts^pp. 327-344). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger,
de Villiers, P .A ., & Hermstein, R.J. (1976). Toward a law o f response strength.
P sych ological Bulletin, 83, 1131-1153.
D ow d, J.E ., & R iggs, D .S . (1965). A comparison o f estimates o f M ichaelis-M enten
kinetic constants from various linear transformations. The Journal o f B iological
C hem istry, 2 4 0 , 863-869.
Dreyfus, L .R ., Dorman, L .G ., Fetterman, J.G ., & Stubbs, D .A . (1982). An invariant
relation between changing over and reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental
Duncan, B ., & Fantino, E. (1970). Choice for periodic schedules o f reinforcement.
Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 14, 73-86.
Duncan, B ., & Fantino, E. (1972). The Psychological distance to reward. Journal o f the
E xperim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 18, 23-34.
Dusoir, T. (1983). Isobias curves in som e detection tasks. Perception and Psychophysics,
3 3, 403-412.
Edmon, E.L. (1978). M ultiple-schedule component duration: A reanalysis o f Shimp and
260 REFERENCES
Wheatley (1971) and Todorov (1972). Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f
B eh avior, 3 0 , 239-241.
Elliffe, D ., & D avison, M. (1985). Performance in continuously available multiple
schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior 4 4 , 343-353.
Elsm ore, T .F. (1972). Duration discrimination: Effects o f probability o f stimulus
presentation. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 18, 465-469.
Epstein, R. (1981). Amount consum ed as a function o f m agazine-cycle duration.
B ehaviour A nalysis L etters, 1, 63-66.
Estes, W .K . (1969). Outline o f a theory o f punishment. In B. Campbell & R .M . Church
(E ds.), Punishm ent and aversive behavior, (pp. 57-82). Englewood C liffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Fantino, E. (1967). Preference for m ixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. Journal o f the
E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 10, 35-43.
Fantino, E. (1968). Effects o f required rates o f responding upon choice. Journal o f the
Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate o f reinforcement. Journal o f the E xperim ental
Fantino, E ., & D avison, M. (1983). Choice: Som e quantitative relations. Journal o f the
E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 0 , 1-13.
Fantino, E ., & Dunn, R. (1983). The delay-reduction hypothesis: Extension to three-
alternative choice. Journal o f E xperim ental P sych ology: Anim al B ehavior P ro
cesses, 9, 132-146.
Fantino, E ., & M oore, J. (1980). Uncertainty reduction, conditioned reinforcement, and
observing. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 3 , 3-13.
Fantino, E ., & Navarick, D . (1974). Recent developm ents in choice. In G .H . Bower
(E d.), The psych ology o f learning and m otivation (V ol. 8) (pp. 147-185). NY:
Academ ic Press.
Fantino, E ., Squires, N ., Delbriick, N ., & Peterson, C. (1972). Choice behavior and the
accessibility o f the reinforcer. Journal o f the E xperim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 18,
35-43.
Farley, J. (1980). Reinforcement and punishment effects in concurrent schedules: A test
o f two m odels. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 3 , 311-326.
Farley, J., & Fantino, E. (1978). The symmetrical law o f effect and the matching relation
in choice behavior. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 9 , 37-60.
Felton, M ., & Lyon, D .O . (1966). The post-reinforcement pause. Journal o f the
E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 9, 131 -134.
Ferguson, G .A . (1965). N onparam etric trend analysis. Montreal: M cG ill University
Press.
Ferster, C .B ., & Skinner, B .F . (1957). Schedules o f reinforcem ent. NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Findley, J.D . (1958). Preference and sw itching under concurrent scheduling. Journal o f
the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 1, 123-144.
Galanter, E ., & H olm an, G .L . (1967). Som e invariances o f the isosensitivity function and
their im plications for the utility function o f money. Journal o f Experim ental
P sych ology, 73, 333-339.
261
Gentry, G .D ., & Marr, M.J. (1980). Choice and reinforcement delay. Journal o f the
Green, D .M . & M cG ill, W.J. (1970). On the equivalence o f detection probabilities and
well-known statistical quantities. P sych ological R eview , 77, 294-301.
Green, D .M . & Sw ets, J.A . (1974). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. NY:
W iley.
Green, L ., & Snyderman, M. (1980). Choice between rewards differing in amount and
delay: Toward a choice model o f self control. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis
o f B ehavior, 34, 135-147.
Grier, J.B. (1971). Nonparametric indices for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas.
Hack, M .H . (1963). Signal detection in the rat. Science, 139, 758-759.
Hardy, G .A ., Littlewood, J.E ., & Polya, G. (1959). Inequalities. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Harnett, P ., McCarthy, D ., & Davison, M. (1984). Delayed signal detection, differential
reinforcement, and short-term memory in the pigeon. Journal o f the Experim ental
Hayes, S .C ., Kapust, J., Leonard, S .R ., & Rosenfarb, I. (1981). Escape from freedom:
Choosing not to choose in pigeons. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f
Behavior, 36, 1-7.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1958). Som e factors influencing behavior in a two-response situation.
T ransactions o f the N ew York Academ y o f Sciences, 2 1 , 35-45.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength o f response as a function o f
frequency o f reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4,
267-272.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1964a). Secondary reinforcement and rate o f primary reinforcement.
Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 7, 27-36.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1964b). Aperiodicity as a factor in choice. Journal o f the Experim ental
Analysis o f B ehavior, 7, 179-182.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1966). Superstition: A corollary o f the principles o f operant condition
ing. In W .K . Honig (E d.), O perant behavior: A reas o f research and application (pp.
33-51). NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1970). On the law o f effect. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f
B ehavior, 13, 243-266.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1974). Formal properties o f the matching law. Journal o f the
Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 21, 159-164.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1979). Derivatives o f matching. P sych ological R eview , 86, 486-495.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1982). Melioration as behavioral dynamism. In M .L. Com mons, R.J.
Herrnstein, & H. Rachlin (E ds.), Quantitative analyses o f beh avior, Vol. II:
M atching and maximizing accounts (pp. 433-458). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Herrnstein, R .J., & Heyman, G .M . (1979). Is matching compatible with reinforcement
maximization on concurrent variable interval, variable ratio? Journal o f the E xper
im ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 3 1 , 209-223.
Herrnstein, R .J., & Loveland, D .H . (1974). Hunger and contrast in multiple schedules.
Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 21, 511-517.
262 REFERENCES
Herm stein, R .J., & Loveland, D .H . (1975). M axim izing and matching on concurrent
ratio schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B eh avior, 2 4 , 107-116.
H erm stein, R .J., & Vaughan, W ., Jr. (1980). M elioration and behavioral allocation. In
J.E .R . Staddon (E d.), L im its to action. NY: Academ ic Press.
H ey man, G .M . (1979). A Markov model description o f changeover probabilities on
concurrent variable-interval schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
B ehavior, 3 1 , 41-51.
H ineline, P .N . (1970). N egative reinforcement without shock reduction. Journal o f the
H inson, J.M ., & Staddon, J.E .R . (1978). Behavioral competition: A m echanism for
schedule interactions. Science, 2 0 2 , 432-434.
H obson, S.L . (1975). Discriminability o f fixed-ratio schedules for pigeons: Effects
o f absolute ratio size. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 3 ,
25-35.
H obson, S.L . (1978). Discrim inability o f fixed-ratio schedules for pigeons: Effects o f
payoff value. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 0 , 69-81.
H odos, W ., & Bonbright, J.C ., Jr. (1972). The detection o f visual intensity differences
by pigeons. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 18, 471-479.
H ollander, M ., & W olfe, D .A . (1973). N onparam etric statistical m ethods. NY: W iley.
Hollard, V ., & D avison, M .C . (1971). Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers.
Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 16, 375-380.
Hollard, V ., & D avison, M .C . (1978). H istological data: Hollard and Davison (1971).
Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 9 , 149.
H olz, W .C . (1968). Punishment and rate o f positive reinforcement. Journal o f the
Hum e, A .L . (1974a). Auditory detection and optimal response biases. P erception and
P sych ophysics, 15, 425-433.
Hum e, A .L . (1974b). Optimal response biases and the slope o f ROC curves as a function
o f signal intensity, signal probability, and relative payoff. P erception and
P sych ophysics, 16, 377-384.
Hum e, A .L ., & Irwin, R.J. (1974). Bias functions and operating characteristics o f rats
discriminating auditory stimuli. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior,
2 1 , 285-295.
Hunter, I.W ., & D avison, M .C . (1978). R esponse rate and changeover performance on
concurrent variable-interval schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
B eh avior, 2 9 , 535-556.
Hunter, I ., & D avison, M. (1982). Independence o f response force and reinforcement rate
on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance. Journal o f the E xperim ental
Hunter, 1.1., & D avison, M. (1985). Determination o f a behavioral transfer function:
W hite noise analysis o f session-to-session response-ratio dynamics on concurrent VI
VI schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior 4 3 , 43-59.
Hursh, S.R . (1980). Econom ic concepts for the analysis o f behavior. Journal o f the
Hursh, S .R ., & Fantino, E. (1973). Relative delay o f reinforcement and choice. Journal
o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 19, 437-450.
263
Isaac, P .D . (1970). Linear regression, structural relations and measurement error.

Ito, M ., & Asaki, K. (1982). Choice behavior o f rats in a concurrent-chains schedule:
Amount and delay o f reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f
Behavior, 37, 383-392.
Jeffress, L .A . (1964). Stimulus-orientated approach to detection. Journal o f the A cous
tical Society o f A m erica, 3 6 , 766-774.
Jeffress, L .A . (1967). Stimulus-orientated approach to detection reexamined. Journal o f
the A coustical Society o f A m erica, 41, 480-488.
Jeffress, L .A . (1968). Mathematical and electrical m odels o f auditory detection. Journal
o f the A coustical Society o f A m erica, 44, 187-203.
Keller, J .V ., & Gollub, L.R. (1977). Duration and rate o f reinforcement as determinants
o f concurrent responding. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 28,
145-153.
Kendall, M .C. & Stuart, A. (1977). The advanced theory o f statistics (4th ed.). London:
Griffin.
Killeen, P. (1968a). On the measurement o f reinforcement frequency in the study o f
preference. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 77, 263-269.
Killeen, P. (1968b). Response rate as a factor in choice. Psychonom ic Science, 12, 34.
K illeen, P. (1970). Preference for fixed-interval schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f
the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 14, 127-131.
K illeen, P. (1972a). The matching law. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior,
17, 489-495.
K illeen, P. (1972b). A yoked-chamber comparison o f concurrent and multiple schedules.
Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 18, 13-22.
K illeen, P.R. (1977). Superstition: A matter o f bias, not detectability. Science, 199,
88-89.
K illeen, P. (1978). Stability criteria. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior,
29, 17-25.
K illeen, P.R. (1981). Learning as causal inference. In M .L. Commons & J.A. Nevin
(E ds.), Q uantitative analyses o f beh avior, Vol. I: D iscrim inative p roperties o f
reinforcem ent schedules (pp. 89-112). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
K illeen, P.R. (1982). Incentive theory: II. M odels for choice. Journal o f the Experim ental
K illeen, P .R ., & Smith, J.P. (1984) Perception o f contingency in conditioning: Scalar
timing, response bias, and the erasure o f memory by reinforcement. Journal o f
Experim ental P sych ology: Anim al B ehavior P rocesses, 10, 333-345.
Koch, S. (Ed.) (1959). P sych ology: A study o f a scien ce, Vol. 2. NY: M cGraw-Hill.
LaBounty, C .E ., & Reynolds, G .S . (1973). An analysis o f response and time matching
to reinforcement in concurrent ratio-interval schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental
Analysis o f B ehavior, 19, 155-166.
Lander, D .G ., & Irwin, R.J. (1968). M ultiple schedules: Effects o f the distribution o f
reinforcements between components on the distribution o f responses between
components. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 77, 517-524.
Lea, S .E .G . (1976). Titration o f schedule parameters by pigeons. Journal o f the
264 REFERENCES
Leung, J-P., & W inton, A .S .W . (1985). Preference for unsegmented interreinforcement

intervals in concurrent chains. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B eh avior, 4 4 ,
89-101.
L ew is, P ., Gardner, E .T ., & Hutton, L. (1976). Integrated delays to shock as negative
reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 6 , 379-386.
Lobb, B ., & D avison, M .C . (1975). Preference in concurrent interval schedules: A
system atic replication. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 4 ,
191-197.
Lobb, B ., & D avison, M .C . (1977). M ultiple and concurrent schedule performance:
Independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts. Journal o f the
Logue, A .W . (1983). Signal detection and matching: Analyzing choice on concurrent
variable-interval schedules. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B eh a vio r, 3 9 ,
107-127.
Logue, A .W ., & de V illiers, P .A . (1978). Matching in concurrent variable-interval
avoidance schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 2 9 , 61-66.
Logue, A .W ., Rodriguez, M .L ., Pena-Correal, T .E ., & Mauro, B .C . (1984). C hoice in
a self-control paradigm: Quantification o f experience-based differences. Journal o f
the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 1 , 53-67.
L uce, R .D . (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. NY: W iley.
L uce, R .D . (1963). Detection and recognition. In R .D . Luce, R .R . Bush, & E. Galanter
(E ds.), H andbook o f m athem atical p sych ology (pp. 105-189). NY: W iley.
M acEw en, D . (1972). The effects o f terminal-link fixed-interval and variable-interval
schedules on responding under concurrent-chained schedules. Journal o f the E xper
im ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 18, 253-261.
M ackintosh, N.J. (1974). The p sych ology o f anim al learning. NY: Academ ic Press.
M arascuilo, L .A ., & M cSw eeney, M. (1977). N onparam etric and distribution-free
m ethods f o r the social scien ces. M onterey, CA: Brooks-C ole.
M arkowitz, J., & Sw ets, J.A . (1967). Factors affecting the slope o f empirical ROC
curves: Comparison o f binary and rating responses. P erception and P sych ophysics,
2 , 91-100.
M atthews, L .R ., & Tem ple, W . (1979). Concurrent-schedule assessm ent o f food
preferences in cow s. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 2 , 245-254.
M azur, J.E. (1984). Tests o f an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays.
Journal o f Experim ental P sych ology: A nim al B ehavior P ro cesses, 10, 426-436.
M azur, J.E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M .L.
C om m ons, J.E. Mazur, J.A . N evin, & H. Rachlin (E ds.), Q uantitative analyses o f
behavior, Vol. V: Effects o f d elay and o f intervening events on reinforcem ent value
(pp. 55-73). H illsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mazur, J.E ., & Logue, A .W . (1978). C hoice in a “ self-control” paradigm: Effects o f a
fading procedure. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 0 , 11-17.
M azur, J.E ., Snyderman, M ., & C oe, D. (1985). Influence o f delay and rate o f
reinforcement on discrete-trial choice. Journal o f E xperim ental P sych ology : A nim al
B ehavior P rocesses, 11, 565-575.
M cCarthy, D . (1983). Measures o f response bias at minimum-detectable luminance levels
in the pigeon. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 9 , 87-106.
265
McCarthy, D ., & D avison, M. (1979). Signal probability, reinforcement, and signal

detection. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 32, 373-386.
McCarthy, D ., & Davison, M. (1980a). On the discriminability o f stimulus duration.
Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 3 3 , 187-211.
McCarthy, D ., & Davison, M. (1980b). Independence o f sensitivity to relative reinforce
ment rate and discriminability in signal detection. Journal o f the Experim ental
A nalysis o f Behavior, 3 4 , 273-284.
McCarthy, D ., & Davison, M. (1981a). Toward a behavioral theory o f bias in signal
detection. Perception and P sychophysics, 2 9 , 371-382.
McCarthy, D ., & Davison, M. (1981b). Matching and signal detection. In M .L.
Commons & J.A. Nevin (E ds.), Quantitative analyses o f behavior, Vol. I:
Discrim inative properties o f reinforcem ent schedules (pp. 393-417). Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
McCarthy, D ., & D avison, M. (1982). Independence o f stimulus discriminability from
absolute rate o f reinforcement in a signal-detection procedure. Journal o f the
Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 3 7 , 371-382.
McCarthy, D ., & Davison, M. (1984). Isobias and alloiobias functions in animal
psychophysics. Journal o f Experim ental Psychology: Anim al B ehavior P rocesses,
10, 390-409.
McCarthy, D ., D avison, M ., & Jenkins, P.E. (1982). Stimulus discriminability in
discrete-trial and free-operant detection procedures. Journal o f the Experim ental
McDiarmid, C ., & Rilling, M. (1965). Reinforcement delay and reinforcement rate as
determiners o f schedule preference. Psychonom ic Science, 2 , 195-196.
M cD ow ell, J.J (1981). W ilkinson’s method o f estimating the parameters o f Herm
stein’s hyperbola. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 35, 413-
414.
M cD ow ell, J.J (1986). On the falsifiability o f matching theory. Journal o f the Experi
mental A nalysis o f Behavior, 4 5 , 63-74.
M cD ow ell, J.J, & K essel, R. (1979). A multivariate rate equation for variable-interval
performance. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 31, 267-283.
M cD ow ell, J.J, & W ood, H .M . (1984). Confirmation o f linear system theory prediction:
Changes in Herm stein’s k as a function o f changes in reinforcer magnitude. Journal
o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 41, 183-192.
M cD ow ell, J.J, & W ood, H .M . (1985). Confirmation o f linear system theory prediction:
Rate o f change o f H erm stein’s k as a function o f response-force requirements.
M cG ill, W.J. (1967). Neural counting mechanisms and energy detection in audition.
Journal o f M athem atical P sych ology, 4 , 351-376.
M cLean, A .P ., & W hite, K .G . (1983). Temporal constraints on choice: Sensitivity and
bias in multiple schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 39,
405-426.
M cSw eeney, F.K. (1975a). Concurrent schedule responding as a function o f body
weight. Anim al Learning and Behavior, 3 , 264-270.
M cSw eeney, F.K. (1975b). Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press
schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 23, 193-198.
266 REFERENCES
M cS w eeney, F.K . (1980). D ifferences between rates o f responding emitted during sim ple
and multiple schedules. A nim al Learning and B eh avior, 8 , 392-400.
M cS w eeney, F.K . (1982). Positive and negative contrast as a function o f com ponent
duration for key-pecking and treadle pressing. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis
o f B ehavior, 3 7 , 281-293.
M cS w eeney, F.K . (1983). Positive behavioral contrast when pigeons press treadles
during multiple schedules. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 39,
149-156.
M cS w eeney, F .K ., & D eR icco, D .A . (1976). Rates o f responding in the pigeon
generated by simple and com plex schedules which provide the same rate o f
reinforcement. A nim al Learning and B eh avior, 4 , 379-385.
M cS w eeney, F .K ., Farmer, V .A ., D ougan, J .D ., & W hipple, J.E. (1986). The
generalized matching law as a description o f m ultiple-schedule responding. Journal
o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 5 , 83-101.
M cS w eeney, F .K ., M elville, C .L ., Buck, M .A . & W hipple, J.E. (1983). Local rates o f
responding and reinforcement during concurrent schedules. Journal o f the E xperi
m ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 0 , 79-98.
M enlove, R.L. (1975). Local patterns o f responding maintained by concurrent and
multiple schedules. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 3 , 309-337.
M erigan, W .H ., M iller, J .S ., & G ollub, L.R . (1975). Short-component multiple
schedules: Effects o f relative reinforcement duration. Journal o f the E xperim ental
M iller, H .L ., Jr. (1976). M atching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. Journal o f the
M iller, H .L ., Jr. (1984). On the further maturing o f behavior analysis: A review o f
C om m ons, Hermstein and Rachlin’s “ Matching and M axim izing A ccou n ts.”
Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 4 2 , 159-164.
M iller, H .L ., & Loveland, D .H . (1974). Matching when the number o f response
alternatives is large. A nim al Learning and B ehavior, 2 , 106-110.
M iller, J.T ., Saunders, S .S ., & Bourland, G. (1980). The role o f stimulus disparity in
concurrently available reinforcement schedules. Anim al Learning and B ehavior, 8 ,
635-641.
M itchell, P ., & W hite, K .G . (1977). Responding in the presence o f free food: Differential
exposure to the reinforcement source. Bulletin o f the P sychonom ic S ociety, 10,
121-124.
M oore, J. (1979). Choice and number o f reinforcers. Journal o f the E xperim ental
M oore, J., & Fantino, E. (1975). Choice and response contingencies. Journal o f the
M ullins, E ., Agunwamba, C .C ., & Donahoe, A.J. (1982). On the analysis o f studies o f
choice. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 7 , 323-327.
M yers, D .L ., & M yers, L.E. (1977). Undermatching: A reappraisal o f performance on
concurrent variable-interval schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f the E xperim ental
Navarick, D .J ., & Fantino, E. (1972). Transitivity as a property o f choice. Journal o f the
267
Navarick, D .J., & Fantino, E. (1974). Stochastic transitivity and unidimensional behavior
theories. P sych ological R e view , 81, 426-441.
Navarick, D .J ., & Fantino, E. (1975). Stochastic transitivity and the unidimensional
control o f choice. Learning and M otivation , 6 , 179-201.
Navarick, D .J ., & Fantino, E. (1976). S elf control and general m odels o f choice. Journal
o f Experim ental P sychology: Anim al B ehavior P ro c esses, 2 , 75-87.
Neuringer, A.J. (1967). Effects o f reinforcement magnitude on choice and rate o f
responding. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 10, 417-424.
Neuringer, A.J. (1969). D elayed reinforcement versus reinforcement after a fixed
interval. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 12, 375-383.
N evin, J.A . (1969). Signal-detection theory and operant behavior: A review o f David M.
Green and John A. S w ets’ “ Signal-detection theory and psychophysics.’’ Journal o f
the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 12, 475-480.
N evin, J.A . (1971). Rates and patterns o f responding with concurrent fixed-interval and
variable-interval reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior,
16, 241-247.
N evin, J.A . (1979). Reinforcement schedules and response strength. In M .D . Zeiler & P.
Harzem (E ds.), A dvances in analysis o f behavior: Vol. 1, Reinforcem ent and the
organisation o f behavior (pp. 117-158). NY: W iley.
Nevin, J.A . (1981). Psychophysics and reinforcement schedules. In M .L. Commons &
J.A. Nevin (E ds.), Q uantitative analyses o f behavior, Vol. I: D iscrim inative
pro p erties o f reinforcem ent schedules (pp. 3-27). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
N evin, J .A ., & Baum, W .M . (1980). Feedback functions for variable-interval reinforce
ment. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 3 4 , 207-217.
N evin, J .A ., Jenkins, P ., Whittaker, S ., & Yarensky, P. (1977). Signal detection and
matching. Paper presented at the November meeting o f the Psychonom ic Society,
W ashington, D .C .
N evin, J .A ., Jenkins, P ., Whittaker, S ., & Yarensky, P. (1982). Reinforcement
contingencies and signal detection. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehav
ior, 37, 65-79.
N evin, J .A ., & M acW illiam s, S. (1983). Ratio reinforcement o f signal detection.
Behaviour A nalysis L etters, 3 , 317-324.
N evin, J .A ., O lson, K ., M andell, C ., & Yarensky, P. (1975). Differential reinforcement
and signal detection. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 2 4 , 355-367.
Pliskoff, S .S . (1971). Effects o f symmetrical and asymmetrical changeover delays on
concurrent performances. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 16,
249-256.
Pliskoff, S .S ., & Brown, T.G . (1976). Matching with a trio o f concurrent variable-
interval schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f
Behavior, 25, 69-73.
Pliskoff, S .S ., Cicerone, R ., & N elson, T .D . (1978). Local response-rate constancy on
concurrent variable-interval schedules o f reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental
Pliskoff, S .S ., Shull, R .L ., & G ollub, L.R. (1968). The relation between response rates
and reinforcer rates in multiple schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
Behavior, 11, 271-284.
268 REFERENCES
Poniew az, W .R . (1984). Effects on preference o f reinforcement delay, number o f

reinforcers, and terminal-link duration. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f
B eh a vio r, 4 2 , 255-266.
Prelec, D . (1984). The assumptions underlying the generalized matching law. Journal o f
the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 1 , 101-107.
Prelec, D ., & H ermstein, R.J. (1978). Feedback functions for reinforcement: A
paradigmatic experiment. A nim al Learning and B ehavior, 6, 181-186.
Premack, D . (1971). Catching up with com m onsense, or two sides o f a generalization:
Reinforcement and punishment. In R. Glaser (E d.), The nature o f reinforcem ent (pp.
121-150). NY: Academ ic Press.
Rachlin, H. (1971). On the tautology o f the matching law. Journal o f the E xperim ental
Rachlin, H ., & Green, L. (1972). Com mitment, choice, and self control. Journal o f the
Rachlin, H ., Green, L ., K agel, J.H ., & Battalio, R .C . (1976). Econom ic demand theory
and psychological theories o f choice. In G .H . Bower (E d.), The P sych ology o f
Learning an d M otivation (V ol. 10) (pp. 129-154). NY: Academ ic Press.
R evusky, S.H . (1963). A relationship between responses per reinforcement and prefer
ence during concurrent VI VI. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 6,
518.
Reynolds, G .S . (1961). Relativity o f response rate and reinforcement frequency in a
multiple schedule. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 , 179-184.
R eynolds, G .S . (1963a). On som e determinants o f choice in pigeons. Journal o f the
Reynolds, G .S . (1963b). Som e limitations on behavioral contrast and induction during
successive discrimination. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 6,
131-139.
Rider, D .P . (1979). Concurrent ratio schedules: Fixed versus variable response require
ments. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 1 , 225-237.
Rider, D .P . (1983). Choice for aperiodic versus periodic ratio schedules: A comparison
o f concurrent and concurrent-chains procedures. Journal o f the E xperim ental
R illing, M .E ., & M cDiarmid, C .G . (1965). Signal detection in fixed-ratio schedules.
Science, 148, 526-527.
Ruckdeschel, F.R . (1981). B asic scientific subroutines, Vol. II. Peterborough, NH:
Byte/M cG raw-H ill.
Schneider, B .A . (1969). A two-state analysis o f fixed-interval responding in the pigeon.
Schneider, J.W . (1972). Choice between two-com ponent chained and tandem schedules.
Schneider, J.W . (1973). Reinforcer effectiveness as a function o f reinforcer rate and
magnitude: A comparison o f concurrent performances. Journal o f the E xperim ental
Schroeder, S .R ., & Holland, J.G. (1969). Reinforcement o f eye movement with
concurrent schedules. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 12,
897-903.
269
Schulman, A .I., & Greenberg, G .Z. (1970). Operating characteristics and a priori
probability o f the signal. P erception and P sych ophysics, 8, 317-320.
Scow n, J.M . (1983). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Waikato University, New Zealand.
Shettleworth, S ., & N evin, J.A. (1965). Relative rate o f response and relative magnitude
o f reinforcement in multiple schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f
B eh avior, 8, 199-202.
Shimp, C .P. (1968). Magnitude and frequency o f reinforcement and frequencies of
interresponse times. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 1 1 , 525-535.
Shimp, C.P. (1969a). Optimum behavior in free-operant experiments. P sychological
R eview , 76, 97-112.
Shimp, C.P. (1969b). The concurrent reinforcement o f two interresponse times: The
relative frequency o f an interresponse time equals its relative harmonic length.
Shimp, C.P. (1971). Matching in a concurrent FI FI schedule. Psychonom ic Science, 22,
27-28.
Shimp, C .P ., & W heatley, K .L. (1971). Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in
multiple schedules with a short component duration. Journal o f the Experim ental
Shull, R .L ., & Pliskoff, S .S . (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: Some
effects on relative performance measures. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f
B ehavior, 10, 517-527.
Siegel, S. (1956). N onparam etric statistics fo r the behavioral sciences. NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Silberberg, A ., & Fantino, E. (1970). C hoice, rate o f reinforcement, and the changeover
delay. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 13, 187-197.
Silberberg, A ., & Schrot, J. (1974). A yoked-chamber comparison o f concurrent and
multiple schedules: The relation between component duration and responding.
Skinner, B.F. (1950). Are theories o f learning necessary? P sych ological R eview , 57,
193-216.
Skinner, B .F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. Am erican P sych ologist, 11,
221-233.
Snyderman, M. (1983). Delay and amount o f reward in a concurrent chain. Journal o f the
Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 39, 437-447.
Snyderman, M. (1984). Body weight and response strength. Behaviour A nalysis L etters,
3, 255-265.
Spealman, R .D ., & G ollub, L.R. (1974). Behavioral interactions in multiple variable-
interval schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 22, 471-481.
Squires, N ., & Fantino, E. (1971). A model for choice in simple concurrent and
concurrent-chains schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 15,
27-38.
Staddon, J.E.R . (1968). Spaced responding and choice: A preliminary analysis. Journal
Staddon, J.E.R . (1977). On H erm stein’s equation and related forms. Journal o f the
Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 28, 163-170.
270 REFERENCES
Staddon, J.E .R ., & Motheral, S. (1978). On matching and m axim izing in operant choice.
P sych ological R e view , 85, 436-444.
Stubbs, D .A . (1968). The discrimination o f stimulus duration by pigeons. Journal o f the
Stubbs, D .A . (1976). Response bias and the discrimination o f stimulus duration. Journal
o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 25, 243-250.
Stubbs, D .A . (1980). Temporal discrimination and a free-operant psychophysical
procedure. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 3 3 , 167-185.
Stubbs, D .A ., & Pliskoff, S .S . (1969). Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate o f
reinforcement. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 12, 887-895.
Stubbs, D .A ., P liskoff, S .S ., & Reid, H .M . (1977). Concurrent schedules: A quantitative
relation between changeover behavior and its consequences. Journal o f the E xper
im ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 2 7 , 85-96.
Sw ets, J .A ., Tanner, W .P ., Jr., & Birdsall, T .G . (1961). D ecision processes in
perception. P sych ological R eview , 68, 301-340.
Tanner, W .P ., Jr., & Birdsall, T .G . (1958). Definitions o f d ’ and n as psychophysical
measures. Journal o f the A coustical Society o f A m erica, 3 0 , 922-928.
Tanner, W .P ., Jr., & Sw ets, J.A . (1954). A decision-m aking theory o f visual detection.
P sych ological R eview , 61, 401-409.
Taylor, R ., & D avison, M. (1983). Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic
and exponential schedules. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 3 9 ,
191-198.
Terman, M. (1970). Discrimination o f auditory intensities by rats. Journal o f the
Terman, M. (1981). Behavioral dynam ics o f the psychometric function. In M .L .
Comm ons & J.A . N evin (E ds.), Q uantitative analyses o f b eh avior, Vol. I:
D iscrim in ative p ro p erties o f reinforcem ent schedules (pp. 321-344). Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Terman, M ., & Terman, J.S. (1972). Concurrent variation o f response bias and
sensitivity in an operant-psychophysical test. P erception and P sych oph ysics, 11,
428-432.
Terman, M ., & Terman, J.S. (1973). Latency differentiation o f hits and false alarms in
an operant-psychophysical test. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior,
2 0 , 439-445.
Thijssen, J.M ., & Vendrick, A .J.H . (1968). Internal noise and transducer function in
sensory detection experiments: Evaluation o f psychometric curves and o f ROC
curves. P erception and P sych ophysics, 3 , 387-400.
Thorndike, E.L. (1913). E ducational psych ology, Vol. 11: The p sych ology o f learning.
NY: Teachers C ollege, Columbia University.
Timberlake, W . (1982). The emperor’s clothes: Assumptions o f the matching theory. In
M .L . C om m ons, R.J. Herrnstein & H. Rachlin (E ds.), Q uantitative analyses o f
behavior, Vol. II: M atching and m axim izing accounts (pp. 549-569). Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Todorov, J.C. (1971). Concurrent performances: Effect o f punishment contingent on the
switching response. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 16, 51-62.
271
Todorov, J.C. (1972). Component duration and relative response rates in multiple
schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 17, 45-49.
Todorov, J.C. (1973). Interaction o f frequency and magnitude o f reinforcement on
concurrent performances. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B eh avior, 19,
451-458.
Todorov, J.C ., Castro, J.M . de O ., Hanna, E .S ., Bittencourt de Sa, M .C .N ., & Barreto,
M. de Q. (1983). C hoice, experience, and the generalized matching law. Journal o f
the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 4 0 , 99-111.
Treisman, M. (1977). On the stability o f ds. P sych ological Bulletin, 84, 235-243.
Trevett, A .J., Davison, M .C ., & W illiam s, R.J. (1972). Performance in concurrent
interval schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 17, 369-374.
Tustin, R .D ., & Davison, M .C. (1978). Distribution o f response ratios in concurrent
variable-interval performance. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 29,
561-564.
Tustin, R .D ., & Davison, M. (1979). Choice: Effects o f changeover schedules on
concurrent performance. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 32,
75-91.
Vaughan, W ., Jr. (1981). M elioration, matching, and maximization. Journal o f the
Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 3 6 , 141-149.
Vaughan, W ., Jr., & M iller, H .L ., Jr. (1984). Optimization versus response-strength
accounts o f behavior. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 42,
337-348.
Wardlaw, G .R ., & D avison, M .C . (1974). Preference for fixed-interval schedules:
Effects o f initial-link length. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 2 1 ,
331-340.
Wearden, J.H. (1980). Undermatching on concurrent variable-interval schedules and the
power law. Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 3 3 , 149-152.
Wearden, J.H. (1981). Bias and undermatching: Implications for Herm stein’s equation.
Behaviour A nalysis L etters, 1, 177-185.
Wearden, J.H ., & Burgess, I.S. (1982). Matching since Baum (1979). Journal o f the
Experim ental Analysis o f Behavior, 38, 339-348.
W etherington, C .L ., & Lucas, T.R . (1980). A note on fitting H erm stein’s equation.
W hite, A .J., & Davison, M .C. (1973). Performance in concurrent fixed-interval
schedules. Journal o f the Experim ental Analysis o f B ehavior, 19, 147-153.
W hite, K .G ., & M itchell, P. (1977). Preference for response-contingent versus free
reinforcement. Bulletin o f the Psychonom ic Society, 10, 125-127.
W hite, K .G ., Pipe, M .-E ., & M cLean, A. (1984). Stimulus and reinforcer relativity in
multiple schedules: Local and dimensional effects on sensitivity to reinforcement.
Journal o f the Experim ental A nalysis o f Behavior, 4 1 , 69-81.
W ickelgren, W .A . (1968). Unidimensional strength theory and component analysis o f
noise in absolute and comparative judgements. Journal o f M athem atical P sychology,
5 , 102 - 122 .
W ilkinson, G .N . (1961). Statistical estimation in enzym e kinetics. Biochem ical Journal,
80, 324-332.
272 REFERENCES
W illiam s, B .A . (1983). Another look at contrast in multiple schedules. Journal o f the

W illiam s, B .A ., & Fantino, E. (1978). Effects on choice o f reinforcer delay and
conditioned reinforcement. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 29,
77-86.
W illiam s, B .A ., & W ixted, J.T. (1986). An equation for behavioral contrast. Journal o f
the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 4 5 , 47-62.
Wright, A .A . (1972). Psychometric and psychophysical hue discrimination functions for
the pigeon. Vision R esearch, 12, 1447-1464.
Wright, A .A . (1974). Psychometric and psychophysical theory within a framework o f
response bias. P sych ological R eview , 81, 322-347.
Wright, A .A . (1982). Detection o f learning and learning to detect. A review o f M .L.
Com m ons and J.A . N evin (E ds.), Quantitative analyses o f behavior, V ol. I:
Discriminative properties o f reinforcement schedules. C ontem porary P sych ology,
2 7 , 566-567.
Wright, A .A ., & N evin, J.A . (1974). Signal detection methods for measurement o f utility
in animals. Journal o f the E xperim ental A nalysis o f B ehavior, 21, 373-380.
Ziriax, J.M ., & Silberberg, A. (1984). Concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio
schedules can provide only weak evidence for matching. Journal o f the Experim ental

Davison and McCarthy - 1988 - Matching Law - A Research Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Davison and McCarthy - 1988 - Matching Law - A Research Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Davison and McCarthy - 1988 - Matching Law - A Research Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSYCHOLOGY LIBRARY EDITIONS:

THE MATCHING LAW

MICHAEL DAVISON AND DIANNE MCCARTHY

ISBN: 978-1-138-19163-1 (Set)

\t£X LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Davison, Michael (Michael C.)

Printed in the United States o f America

Preface ..................................................................................................... vii

1. Historical Antecedents ................................................................... 1

2. The Strict Matching Law ............................................................... 16

3. Herrnstein’s Equations, Multiple Schedules, and Empirical

3.2 The logic of H erm stein’s multiple-schedule equations ........... 32

4. Generalized Matching ................................................................... 48

5. Quantitative Methods .................................................................... 63

6. Concurrent-Schedule Research I: Reinforcer Parameters ........ 80

7. Concurrent-Schedule Research II: Schedule Types .................. 99

7.9 Concurrent VI VT performance .................................................... 108

8. Concurrent-Schedule Research III: Miscellany .......................... 120

9. Multiple-Schedule Research .......................................................... 152

10. Concurrent-Chain Performance ................................................... 185

11. Matching Models of Signal Detection .......................................... 216

11.3 Signal detection as matching ........................................................ 219

12. For the future .................................................................................. 249

References .................................................................................................. 255

The purpose of this book is to present a coherent summary of some 30 years’

could be made contingent on either the passage of time (interval schedules) or on

reported by Skinner, however, seemed to have no immediate or great effect on

1.1a. The Two-Key Concurrent-Schedule Procedure

1.1b. The Changeover-Key or Findley Concurrent-

1.1c. Scheduling of Reinforcers

1.1d. Introduction Continued

1.2. INITIAL QUANTIFICATIONS

Hermstein (1961) reported an experiment in which responses on two keys were

B, IcR, . (B, + B 2)083 _ B,

1.4. SOME FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Shull and Pliskoff (1967) used switching-key concurrent VI VI schedules to

1.5. TIME ALLOCATION

Time-allocation measures were given major prominence in a study of concurrent

Time-allocation matching was also the major subject of an experiment

concurrent VI VI schedule experiments. The procedure of collecting both

1.7. SOME OTHER INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

The reciprocal form of matching arises because, unlike reinforcer rate or

Brinker, R .P ., & Treadway, J.T. (1975). Preference and discrimination between

Isaac, P .D . (1970). Linear regression, structural relations and measurement error.

Leung, J-P., & W inton, A .S .W . (1985). Preference for unsegmented interreinforcement

McCarthy, D ., & D avison, M. (1979). Signal probability, reinforcement, and signal

Poniew az, W .R . (1984). Effects on preference o f reinforcement delay, number o f

W illiam s, B .A . (1983). Another look at contrast in multiple schedules. Journal o f the

You might also like