Limited Matching on Concurrent‐schedule Reinforcement of Academic Behavior

Abstract

Three adolescent students with special educational needs were given a choice between completing one of two available sets of math problems. Reinforcers (nickels) across these alternatives were arranged systematically in separate experimental phases according to three different concurrent variable-interval schedules (reinforcement ratios of 2:1, 6:1, and 12:1). Time allocated to the two stacks of math problems stood in linear relationship to the reinforcement rate obtained from each stack, although substantial undermatching and bias were observed for all subjects. However, changes in the schedules were not followed by changes in allocation patterns until adjunct procedures (e.g., changeover delays, limited holds, timers, and demonstrations) were introduced. The necessity of adjunct procedures in establishing matching in applied situations is discussed as a limitation to quantitative applications of the matching law in applied behavior analysis.

An Analysis of Choice Making in the Assessment of Young Children With Severe Behavior Problems

“…Address correspondence and requests for reprints to Jay Harding, University Hospital School, Room 251, 100 Hawkins Drive, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242. fects in natural settings (e.g., Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994;Neef, Mace, & Shade, 1993;Neef, Shade, & Miller, 1994). As discussed by Neef et al (1994), response alternatives in natural contexts are often asymmetrical across reinforcer dimensions.…”

“…These studies have used a concurrent-operants arrangement in which two or more behaviors are concurrently available and each is correlated with an independent schedule of reinforcement. For example, investigators have examined various reinforcement dimensions (e.g., reinforcement rate, delay, and quality) to determine whether they have similar ef-fects in natural settings (e.g., Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994;Neef, Mace, & Shade, 1993;Neef, Shade, & Miller, 1994). As discussed by Neef et al (1994), response alternatives in natural contexts are often asymmetrical across reinforcer dimensions.…”

What are we doing when we translate from quantitative models?

“…Applications of the generalized matching law (Figure 2) suggest that in many of these situations behavior allocation is a common function of relative reinforcement. Figure 3 shows the core matching relation as it describes conversation (Panel A; Borrero et al, 2007), basketball shot selection (Panel B; Alferink et al, 2009), and academic behavior (Panel C; Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994).…”

Integrating Basic and Applied Research and the Utility of Lattal and Perone's Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior

“…Of special relevance to application are Mazur's discussions on using concurrent reinforcement schedules to examine different response topographies and reinforcers (e.g., Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994;Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992) and on the role of rule governance in choice (e.g., Horne & Lowe, 1993). These sections are meaningful because they acknowledge some of the complexities of analyses of choice in everyday situations (Fuqua, 1984;Mace, 1994).…”