Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Is there a decisive test between matching and maximizing?

H Rachlin, L Green, B Tormey

    Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
    |September 1, 1988
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Black Hole Spectroscopy and Tests of General Relativity with GW250114.

    Physical review letters·2026
    Same author

    GW250114: Testing Hawking's Area Law and the Kerr Nature of Black Holes.

    Physical review letters·2025
    Same author

    Unlocking the potential of electronic blood transfusion systems: Implementation insights from NHS hospitals in England.

    British journal of haematology·2025
    Same author

    Clinical, tactical and strategic benefits of a UK Spray Dried Plasma production capability.

    BMJ military health·2025
    Same author

    Every minute counts: A comparison of thawing times and haemostatic quality of plasma thawed at 37°C and 45°C using four different methods.

    Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England)·2024
    Same author

    A systematic review of whether Health Impact Assessment frameworks support best practice principles.

    Public health·2024

    Behavioral choice under concurrent schedules was studied. Neither simple matching nor strict maximizing fully explained subject behavior, suggesting a compatible view of both theories in understanding choice dynamics.

    Area of Science:

    • Behavioral psychology
    • Animal behavior
    • Decision-making

    Background:

    • Concurrent schedules of reinforcement present choices between different schedules.
    • Understanding choice behavior is crucial for behavioral economics and psychology.
    • Previous models like matching and maximizing offer different predictions for choice behavior.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To investigate choice behavior under concurrent variable-interval (VI) and variable-ratio (VR) schedules.
    • To test the predictive power of matching and maximizing theories in this context.
    • To explore how reinforcer timing and delay influence choice.

    Main Methods:

    • Subjects were exposed to concurrent VI-VR schedules with specific reinforcer categories.
    • The rate of certain reinforcers and changeover delay duration were systematically varied.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Behavioral allocation (time spent on each component) and reinforcement rates were recorded.

    • Main Results:

    • Simple matching theory was disconfirmed as subjects did not exclusively choose the VI component.
    • Strict maximizing theory was also disconfirmed, as subjects earned fewer reinforcers than predicted.
    • Subjects allocated approximately 25% of their time to the VR component.

    Conclusions:

    • Neither matching nor maximizing solely explains the observed choice behavior.
    • Maximizing can describe the data by considering the discounting of delayed reinforcers.
    • Matching can describe the data by considering the restructuring of response alternatives.
    • Matching and maximizing may be compatible perspectives for analyzing choice behavior.