Maximization theory vindicated

Preference for Reinforcers Under Varying Schedule Arrangements: A Behavioral Economic Analysis

“…Two approaches to measure preference under varying schedule arrangements have been used: the matching principle (Herrnstein, 1970), and behavioral economic approaches (Hursh, 1984;Morgan & Tustin, 1992;Rachlin, Battalio, Kagel, & Green, 1981;Tustin & Morgan, 1985). Both Neef, Mace, Shea, and Shade (1992) and L. Green and Freed (1993) noted that, although the matching principle is applicable when alternative reinforcers are qualitatively similar, its ability to predict choice 597 19942271,597-606 NUMBER4 (wmm 1994) between qualitatively different reinforcers may be limited.…”

“…Both Neef, Mace, Shea, and Shade (1992) and L. Green and Freed (1993) noted that, although the matching principle is applicable when alternative reinforcers are qualitatively similar, its ability to predict choice 597 19942271,597-606 NUMBER4 (wmm 1994) between qualitatively different reinforcers may be limited. By contrast, measures of preference used in the field of behavioral economics are applicable when reinforcers are qualitatively different (Rachlin et al, 1981), so data from economic analyses of schedule effects may be particularly relevant to applied behavior analysts.…”

“…When fixed-ratio (FR) schedules are used, the relation between I and R is set by the schedule requirement (Hursh, 1984). The concept of price is used in the economic theory of demand for reinforcers (Lea, 1978;Rachlin et al, 1981), whereas the concept of pay rate is used in the economic theory of labor supply (Battalio, Kagel, & Green, 1979).…”

Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons / by Kevin D. Jackson.

“…Molar maximization models of choice, which assume behavior maximizes overall obtained reinforcement, are most consistent with human self-control performance (e.g., Houston & McNamara, 1985;Rachlin, Battalio, Kagel, & Green, 1981).…”