Matching without learning

Abstract

Matching behavior is a phenomenon describing response rate ratios of an organism as a function of their associated reinforcer rate ratios. The generalized matching law (GML), its quantitative formulation, has been frequently found to explain over 80% of the variance in concurrent reinforcement schedules. However, a previous paper found by means of Monte Carlo simulations that matching behavior could be due to environmental constraints on behavior rather than a mere decision-making process. The purpose of the current study is to systemically investigate the influence of constraints induced by concurrent schedules of reinforcement. A Monte Carlo simulation was carried out. Results showed that the GML reached much better explained variances with real (and artificial) organisms than the current simulated results. Thus, a learning process seems partly necessary to generate matching behavior. According to the current findings, concurrent reinforcement schedules clearly induced a quantitative dependency between behavior rates and reinforcer rates. The simulation demonstrates that matching behavior is not only a consequence of a behavioral (decision-making) process, but of environmental conditions also.

Keywords

Matching law Monte-Carlo simulations operant conditioning matching behavior learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baum

W. M.

(1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 137–153.

Baum

W. M.

(1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.

Baum

W. M.

(1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269–281.

Bijou

S. W.

Peterson

R. F.

Ault

M. H.

(1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191.

Caron

P.-O.

(2013). On applying the matching law to between-subject data. Animal Behaviour, 85, 857–860.

Caron

P.-O.

(2014). La loi généralisée de l’appariement: une simulation de Monte-Carlo. Acta Comportamentalia, 22, 169–179.

Davison

McCarthy

(1988). The matching law: A research review. Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dawson

M. R. W.

Dupuis

Spetch

M. L.

Kelly

D. M.

(2009). Simple artificial neural networks that match probability and exploit and explore when confronting a multiarmed bandit. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 20, 1368–1371.

Gallistel

C. R.

(2005). Deconstructing the law of effect. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 410–423.

10.

Herrnstein

R. J.

(1997). The matching law. Papers in psychology and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Iigaya

Fusi

(2013). Dynamical regimes in neural network models of matching behavior. Neural Computation, 25, 3093–3112.

12.

Loewenstein

(2008). Robustness of learning that is based on covariance-driven synaptic plasticity. PLoS Computational Biology, 4, e1000007.

13.

McDowell

J. J.

(2004). A computational model of selection by consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 297–317.

14.

McDowell

J. J.

(2013a). On the theoretical and empirical status of the matching law and matching theory. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1000–1028.

15.

McDowell

J. J.

(2013b). A quantitative evolutionary theory of adaptive behavior dynamics. Psychological Review, 120, 731–750.

16.

McDowell

J. J.

Ansari

(2005). The quantitative law of effect is a robust emergent property of an evolutionary algorithm for reinforcement learning. In Capcarrere

Freitas

Bentley

Johnson

Timmis

(Eds.), Advances in artificial life: ECAL 2005, LNAI 3630. (pp. 413–422). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

17.

Rachlin

Battalio

R. C.

Kagel

J. H.

Green

(1981). Maximization theory in behavioral psychology. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 371–388.

18.

Reed

D. D.

(2009). Using Microsoft Office Excel® 2007 to conduct generalized matching analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 867–875.

19.

Rivard

Forget

Kerr

Bégin

(2014). Matching law and sensitivity to therapist’s attention in children with autism spectrum disorders. The Psychological Record, 65, 79–88.

20.

Saito

Katahira

Okanoya

Okada

(2014). Bayesian deterministic decision making: A normative account of the operant matching law and heavy-tailed reward history dependency of choices. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 8, 1–7.

21.

Sakai

Fukai

(2008). When does reward maximization lead to matching law?PLoS One, 3, e3795.

22.

Skinner

B. F.

(1938). The behavior of organism. New York: Appleton Century Croft.

23.

Shimp

C. P.

(1992). Computational behavior dynamics: An alternative description of Nevin (1969). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 289–299.

24.

Sutton

R. S.

Barto

A. G.

(1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

25.

Wearden

J. H.

Burgess

I. S.

(1982). Matching since Baum (1979). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 339–348.