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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1979-09, Vol.32 (2), p.269-281 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & 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 |