A Collateral Effect of Reward Predicted by Matching Theory

Abstract

Matching theory describes a process by which organisms distribute their behavior between two or more concurrent schedules of reinforcement (Herrnstein, 1961). In an attempt to determine the generality of matching theory to applied settings, 2 students receiving special education were provided with academic response alternatives. Using a combined simultaneous treatments design and reversal design, unequal ratio schedules of reinforcement were varied across two academic responses. Findings indicated that both subjects allocated higher rates of responses to the richer schedule of reinforcement, although only one responded exclusively to the richer schedule. The present results lend support to a postulation that positive reinforcement may have undesirable collateral effects that are predicted by matching theory (Balsam & Bondy, 1983).

Human sensitivity to reinforcement in operant choice: How much do consequences matter?

“…These have a direct bearing on the validity of the relationship described in Equations I and 2 in human behavior. Three of these employed concurrent VI-VI schedules (Conger & Killeen, 1974;Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994;Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992), while the others used Equation 2 to describe human behavior under VI schedules (Beardsley & McDowell, 1992;Mace, McCurdy, & Quigley, 1990;Martens, Halperin, Rummel, & Kilpatrick, 1990;Martens & Houk, 1989;Martens, Lochner, & Kelly, 1992;McDowell, 1982). The table shows that studies in naturalistic settings employed a wide range of response classes and consequences.…”

Selecting Instructional Interventions for Students with Mild Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms

“…Self-instruction 4. Self-reinforcement A behavioral view of self-regulation emphasizes the importance of having students learn to postpone an immediate reward in return for a more appropriate (and hopefully more satisfying) reward at a later time (Mace, Belfiore, & Shea, 1990). Self-regulation of behavior involves identifying behavioral alternatives, choosing reinforcers for the behavioral alternatives, and managing the delivery of delayed consequences.…”

The Effects of Fixed Ratio Values on Concurrent Mand and Play Responses

“…However, alteration of response effort, reinforcement quality, and schedule values have been shown to similarly shift response allocation during concurrent-ratio schedules (DeLeon, Fisher, Herman, & Crosland, 2000;Perry & Fisher, 2001). Altering values of concurrent-ratio schedules has successfully decreased maladaptive behaviors while increasing functional behaviors, as well as showing control over the allocation of two functional behaviors (Horner & Day, 1991;Mace, McCurdy, & Quigley, 1990). Response allocation also shifts from a less to a more effortful response during a concurrent-ratio situation by increasing the rate of reinforcement for the more effortful response (Cuvo, Lerch, Leurquin, Gaffaney, & Poppen, 1998).…”