When using the matching law in applied settings, a recurring problem is to assess when subjects adjust their responses as a function of their associated reinforcers. Specifically, the main concern is to determine whether subjects’ behavior are sensitive to reinforcement or not. Many researchers have followed (explicitly or implicitly) the criterion that 50% of explained variance is deemed acceptable to consider the subject sensitive. However, it is neither theoretically nor empirically grounded. This article presents a null hypothesis statistical test to assess whether an organism’s behavior is sensitive to reinforcement as quantitatively expressed by the matching law. We first introduce the motivation as to why such a test is warranted, formally described the basis of the model used to compute the null hypothesis and then show some of its advantages. We conclude the article with a hypothetical example.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
2.
BaumW. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242. doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.22–231
3.
BaumW. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269–281. doi:10.1901/jeab.1979. 32–269
4.
CaronP.-O. (2014). La loi généralisée de l’appariement: une simulation de Monte-Carlo [The generalized matching law: A Monte Carlo simulation]. Acta Comportamentalia, 22, 169–179.
5.
CaronP.-O. (2015). Matching without learning. Adaptive Behavior, 23, 227–233. doi:10.1177/1059712315590484
6.
CaronP.-O. (2017). Sur la loi de l’appariement [On the matching law]. Psychologie Française, 62, 29–55. doi:10.1016/j.psfr.2015.10.003
7.
CaronP.-O.ForgetJ.RivardM. (in press). The response allocation of children in mainstream day care according to social reinforcer ratios. European Journal of Behavior Analysis. doi:10.1080/15021149.2017.1309956
8.
CasellaG.BergerR. L. (2002). Statistical inference. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
9.
DalleryJ.SotoP. L. (2013). Quantitative description of environment-behavior relations. In MaddenG. J. (Ed.), APA handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 1: Methods and principles. (pp. 219–249) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.
DavisonM.McCarthyD. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
ForgetJ.RivardM. (2010). Évaluer la sensibilité sociale de l’enfant à l’attention de l’adulte. Perspective de recherche en Autisme [Evaluating social sensitivity of children to adult attention. Research perspectives in Autism]. In MagerotteG.WillayeE. (Eds.), Intervention comportementale clinique (pp. 235–287). Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.
12.
HerrnsteinR. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272. doi:10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267
13.
HerrnsteinR. J. (1997). The matching law: Papers in psychology and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
HowellD. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
15.
McDowellJ. J. (1981). On the validity and utility of Herrnstein’s hyperbola in applied behavior analysis. In BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.loweC. F. (Eds.), Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour (pp. 95–109). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
16.
McDowellJ. J. (2013). On the theoretical and empirical status of the matching law and matching theory. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1000–1028. doi:10.1037/a0029924
17.
McDowellJ. J.AnsariZ. (2005). The quantitative law of effect is a robust emergent property of an evolutionary algorithm for reinforcement learning. In CapcarrereM.FreitasA.BentleyP.JohnsonC.TimmisJ. (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: ECAL 2005, LNAI 3630 (pp. 413–422). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
18.
MyersonJ.HaleS. (1984). Practical implications of the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 367–380. doi:10.1901/jaba.1984.17-367
19.
NollJ. P. (1995). The matching law as a theory of choice in behavior therapy. In O’DonohueW. T.KrasnerL. (Eds.), Theories of behavior therapy: Exploring behavior change (pp. 129–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10169-005
20.
PearsonK. (1897). On a form of spurious correlation which may arise when indices are used in the measurement of organs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 60, 489–497.
21.
ReedD. D. (2009). Using Microsoft Office Excel® 2007 to conduct generalized matching analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 867–875. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009. 42–867
22.
RivardM.ForgetJ.KerrK.BéginJ. (2014). Matching law and sensitivity to therapist’s attention in children with autism spectrum disorders. The Psychological Record, 65, 79–88. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0015-1
23.
St PeterC. C.VollmerT. R.BourretJ. C.BorreroC. S. W.SlomanK. N.RappJ. T. (2005). On the role of attention in naturally occurring matching relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 429–443. doi:10.1901/jaba.2005.172-04
24.
YuleG. Y. (1910). On the interpretation of correlations between indices or ratios. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 73, 644–647. doi:10.2307/2339906
