Abstract
A single subject allocated behavior to several concurrent variable interval/fixed ratio reinforcement schedules and a series of fixed ratio schedules with no other alternative schedule present. The allocation of behavior to the real choices (concurrent schedules) and no choice (fixed ratio only) schedule situations conformed to those predicted by formal equations for maximization of reinforcements in each situation. The results suggest that, while matching may be a fundamental rule of behavioral choice in animals and people, there exist identifiable limitations to its applicability to human choice behavior. Humans with some training in economic income maximization are likely to maximize rather than match in concurrent choice situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.