Loading…

MATCHING, UNDERMATCHING, AND OVERMATCHING IN STUDIES OF CHOICE

Almost all of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice conformed closely to the equation: log (B1/B2) = a log (r1/r2) + log b, where B1 and B2 are either numbers of responses or times spent at Alternatives 1 and 2, r1 and r2 are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1979-09, Vol.32 (2), p.269-281
Main Author: William, Baum M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5695-c0cf1ee59b156d7b6ca3fed22d5a048559dd8d289389662cc542e95acc726c2a3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5695-c0cf1ee59b156d7b6ca3fed22d5a048559dd8d289389662cc542e95acc726c2a3
container_end_page 281
container_issue 2
container_start_page 269
container_title Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
container_volume 32
creator William, Baum M.
description Almost all of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice conformed closely to the equation: log (B1/B2) = a log (r1/r2) + log b, where B1 and B2 are either numbers of responses or times spent at Alternatives 1 and 2, r1 and r2 are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and 2, and a and b are empirical constants. Although the matching relation requires the slope a to equal 1.0, the best‐fitting values of a frequently deviated from this. For B1 and B2 measured as numbers of responses, a tended to fall short of 1.0 (undermatching). For B1 and B2 measured as times, a fell to both sides of 1.0, with the largest mode at about 1.0. Those experiments that produced values of a for both responses and time revealed only a rough correspondence between the two values; a was often noticeably larger for time. Statistical techniques for assessing significance of a deviation of a from 1.0 suggested that values of a between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. Of the two experimenters who contributed the most data, one generally found undermatching, while the other generally found matching. The difference in results probably arises from differences in procedure. The procedural variations that lead to undermatching appear to be those that produce (a) asymmetrical pausing that favors the poorer alternative; (b) systematic temporal variation in preference that favors the poorer alternative; and (c) patterns of responding that involve changing over between alternatives or brief bouts at the alternatives.
doi_str_mv 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1332902</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1311438397</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5695-c0cf1ee59b156d7b6ca3fed22d5a048559dd8d289389662cc542e95acc726c2a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUc9v0zAUthBjdIM7hx0iIXEiw36O7fgyqWuzNrClEluZtMuT67iQLm1G3ML2389Vpg64cHnv2d8PvaePkHeMHjNN2aeFM7MwKX3MIQapX5Ae0zyNuWLsJelRChCLUF-TA-8XYdBSwT55JSgDlfTIyUX_ajDOi9HHaFoMs6_Pz34xjCbfnn-ivIgur6bDPLuMJmfRYDzJB9kbsjc3tXdvn_ohmZ5lgR-fT0b5oH8eWyG1iC21c-ac0DMmZKlm0ho-dyVAKQxNUiF0WaYlpGFzLSVYKxJwWhhrFUgLhh-Sk873bjNbutK61bo1Nd611dK0D9iYCv9GVtUP_N78QsY5aArB4MOTQdv83Di_xmXlratrs3LNxqNKVAoJp4H4_h_iotm0q3Bc8GIs4SnXKrBox7Jt433r5rtVGMVtMLgNBrfBIAcMwQTJ0Z8n7ARdEgGWHfy7qt3Df-3wc9Y_ZUqKIIw7YeXX7n4nNO0tSsWVwOtihKf8Rn7RfIwX_BG_B6ML</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1311438397</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>MATCHING, UNDERMATCHING, AND OVERMATCHING IN STUDIES OF CHOICE</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><creator>William, Baum M.</creator><creatorcontrib>William, Baum M.</creatorcontrib><description>Almost all of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice conformed closely to the equation: log (B1/B2) = a log (r1/r2) + log b, where B1 and B2 are either numbers of responses or times spent at Alternatives 1 and 2, r1 and r2 are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and 2, and a and b are empirical constants. Although the matching relation requires the slope a to equal 1.0, the best‐fitting values of a frequently deviated from this. For B1 and B2 measured as numbers of responses, a tended to fall short of 1.0 (undermatching). For B1 and B2 measured as times, a fell to both sides of 1.0, with the largest mode at about 1.0. Those experiments that produced values of a for both responses and time revealed only a rough correspondence between the two values; a was often noticeably larger for time. Statistical techniques for assessing significance of a deviation of a from 1.0 suggested that values of a between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. Of the two experimenters who contributed the most data, one generally found undermatching, while the other generally found matching. The difference in results probably arises from differences in procedure. The procedural variations that lead to undermatching appear to be those that produce (a) asymmetrical pausing that favors the poorer alternative; (b) systematic temporal variation in preference that favors the poorer alternative; and (c) patterns of responding that involve changing over between alternatives or brief bouts at the alternatives.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-5002</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3711</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269</identifier><identifier>PMID: 501274</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; choice ; Choice Behavior ; Columbidae ; Conditioning, Operant ; cone VIVI ; Discrimination Learning ; matching relation ; overmatching ; Reinforcement Schedule ; Review ; undermatching</subject><ispartof>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1979-09, Vol.32 (2), p.269-281</ispartof><rights>1979 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5695-c0cf1ee59b156d7b6ca3fed22d5a048559dd8d289389662cc542e95acc726c2a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5695-c0cf1ee59b156d7b6ca3fed22d5a048559dd8d289389662cc542e95acc726c2a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332902/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332902/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,882,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/501274$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>William, Baum M.</creatorcontrib><title>MATCHING, UNDERMATCHING, AND OVERMATCHING IN STUDIES OF CHOICE</title><title>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior</title><addtitle>J Exp Anal Behav</addtitle><description>Almost all of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice conformed closely to the equation: log (B1/B2) = a log (r1/r2) + log b, where B1 and B2 are either numbers of responses or times spent at Alternatives 1 and 2, r1 and r2 are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and 2, and a and b are empirical constants. Although the matching relation requires the slope a to equal 1.0, the best‐fitting values of a frequently deviated from this. For B1 and B2 measured as numbers of responses, a tended to fall short of 1.0 (undermatching). For B1 and B2 measured as times, a fell to both sides of 1.0, with the largest mode at about 1.0. Those experiments that produced values of a for both responses and time revealed only a rough correspondence between the two values; a was often noticeably larger for time. Statistical techniques for assessing significance of a deviation of a from 1.0 suggested that values of a between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. Of the two experimenters who contributed the most data, one generally found undermatching, while the other generally found matching. The difference in results probably arises from differences in procedure. The procedural variations that lead to undermatching appear to be those that produce (a) asymmetrical pausing that favors the poorer alternative; (b) systematic temporal variation in preference that favors the poorer alternative; and (c) patterns of responding that involve changing over between alternatives or brief bouts at the alternatives.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>choice</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Columbidae</subject><subject>Conditioning, Operant</subject><subject>cone VIVI</subject><subject>Discrimination Learning</subject><subject>matching relation</subject><subject>overmatching</subject><subject>Reinforcement Schedule</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>undermatching</subject><issn>0022-5002</issn><issn>1938-3711</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1979</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUc9v0zAUthBjdIM7hx0iIXEiw36O7fgyqWuzNrClEluZtMuT67iQLm1G3ML2389Vpg64cHnv2d8PvaePkHeMHjNN2aeFM7MwKX3MIQapX5Ae0zyNuWLsJelRChCLUF-TA-8XYdBSwT55JSgDlfTIyUX_ajDOi9HHaFoMs6_Pz34xjCbfnn-ivIgur6bDPLuMJmfRYDzJB9kbsjc3tXdvn_ohmZ5lgR-fT0b5oH8eWyG1iC21c-ac0DMmZKlm0ho-dyVAKQxNUiF0WaYlpGFzLSVYKxJwWhhrFUgLhh-Sk873bjNbutK61bo1Nd611dK0D9iYCv9GVtUP_N78QsY5aArB4MOTQdv83Di_xmXlratrs3LNxqNKVAoJp4H4_h_iotm0q3Bc8GIs4SnXKrBox7Jt433r5rtVGMVtMLgNBrfBIAcMwQTJ0Z8n7ARdEgGWHfy7qt3Df-3wc9Y_ZUqKIIw7YeXX7n4nNO0tSsWVwOtihKf8Rn7RfIwX_BG_B6ML</recordid><startdate>197909</startdate><enddate>197909</enddate><creator>William, Baum M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JTYFY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>197909</creationdate><title>MATCHING, UNDERMATCHING, AND OVERMATCHING IN STUDIES OF CHOICE</title><author>William, Baum M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5695-c0cf1ee59b156d7b6ca3fed22d5a048559dd8d289389662cc542e95acc726c2a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1979</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>choice</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Columbidae</topic><topic>Conditioning, Operant</topic><topic>cone VIVI</topic><topic>Discrimination Learning</topic><topic>matching relation</topic><topic>overmatching</topic><topic>Reinforcement Schedule</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>undermatching</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>William, Baum M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 37</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>William, Baum M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MATCHING, UNDERMATCHING, AND OVERMATCHING IN STUDIES OF CHOICE</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Anal Behav</addtitle><date>1979-09</date><risdate>1979</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>269</spage><epage>281</epage><pages>269-281</pages><issn>0022-5002</issn><eissn>1938-3711</eissn><abstract>Almost all of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice conformed closely to the equation: log (B1/B2) = a log (r1/r2) + log b, where B1 and B2 are either numbers of responses or times spent at Alternatives 1 and 2, r1 and r2 are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and 2, and a and b are empirical constants. Although the matching relation requires the slope a to equal 1.0, the best‐fitting values of a frequently deviated from this. For B1 and B2 measured as numbers of responses, a tended to fall short of 1.0 (undermatching). For B1 and B2 measured as times, a fell to both sides of 1.0, with the largest mode at about 1.0. Those experiments that produced values of a for both responses and time revealed only a rough correspondence between the two values; a was often noticeably larger for time. Statistical techniques for assessing significance of a deviation of a from 1.0 suggested that values of a between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. Of the two experimenters who contributed the most data, one generally found undermatching, while the other generally found matching. The difference in results probably arises from differences in procedure. The procedural variations that lead to undermatching appear to be those that produce (a) asymmetrical pausing that favors the poorer alternative; (b) systematic temporal variation in preference that favors the poorer alternative; and (c) patterns of responding that involve changing over between alternatives or brief bouts at the alternatives.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>501274</pmid><doi>10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-5002
ispartof Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1979-09, Vol.32 (2), p.269-281
issn 0022-5002
1938-3711
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1332902
source Open Access: PubMed Central
subjects Animals
choice
Choice Behavior
Columbidae
Conditioning, Operant
cone VIVI
Discrimination Learning
matching relation
overmatching
Reinforcement Schedule
Review
undermatching
title MATCHING, UNDERMATCHING, AND OVERMATCHING IN STUDIES OF CHOICE
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T23%3A25%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MATCHING,%20UNDERMATCHING,%20AND%20OVERMATCHING%20IN%20STUDIES%20OF%20CHOICE&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20experimental%20analysis%20of%20behavior&rft.au=William,%20Baum%20M.&rft.date=1979-09&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=269&rft.epage=281&rft.pages=269-281&rft.issn=0022-5002&rft.eissn=1938-3711&rft_id=info:doi/10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1311438397%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5695-c0cf1ee59b156d7b6ca3fed22d5a048559dd8d289389662cc542e95acc726c2a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1311438397&rft_id=info:pmid/501274&rfr_iscdi=true