Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice

Abstract

Almost all of 103 sets of data from 23 different studies of choice conformed closely to the equation: log (B(1)/B(2)) = a log (r(1)/r(2)) + log b, where B(1) and B(2) are either numbers of responses or times spent at Alternatives 1 and 2, r(1) and r(2) are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and 2, and a and b are empirical constants. Although the matching relation requires the slope a to equal 1.0, the best-fitting values of a frequently deviated from this. For B(1) and B(2) measured as numbers of responses, a tended to fall short of 1.0 (undermatching). For B(1) and B(2) measured as times, a fell to both sides of 1.0, with the largest mode at about 1.0. Those experiments that produced values of a for both responses and time revealed only a rough correspondence between the two values; a was often noticeably larger for time. Statistical techniques for assessing significance of a deviation of a from 1.0 suggested that values of a between .90 and 1.11 can be considered good approximations to matching. Of the two experimenters who contributed the most data, one generally found undermatching, while the other generally found matching. The difference in results probably arises from differences in procedure. The procedural variations that lead to undermatching appear to be those that produce (a) asymmetrical pausing that favors the poorer alternative; (b) systematic temporal variation in preference that favors the poorer alternative; and (c) patterns of responding that involve changing over between alternatives or brief bouts at the alternatives.