An Application of the Matching Law to Social Dynamics

Abstract

Using a procedure similar to the one described by Conger and Killeen (1974), we evaluated levels of attending for 25 college students who participated in either a 20-min (n = 12) or 30-min (n = 13) discussion on juvenile delinquency. Confederates delivered statements of agreement (e.g., "I agree with that point") according to independent variable-interval schedules. Pooled results were evaluated using three generalized formulations of the matching law, and showed that matching was more likely during the first 5 min of the discussion than during the last 5 min. Individual data for 7 of 9 participants were better described by the generalized response-rate matching equation than by the generalized time-allocation matching equation when response allocation was characterized in terms of frequency rather than duration.

On applying the matching law to between-subject data

“…For instance, Borrero et al (2007) investigated whether the generalized matching law describes social interactions among undergraduate students. When subjects' data were pooled, they found through nine analyses that sensitivity ).…”

“…A case of excessively low response rates possibly appeared in the study by Borrero et al (2007) because (1) they tested two reinforcer ratios, a concurrent variable-interval (30 s, 120 s) schedule and its reciprocal, (2) the session lasted 20e30 min, (3) the duration of an instance of the response could be longer than the duration specified by the concurrent schedule and (4) the reinforcers were always given at the end of the response. These conditions increased the across-level variance because subjects were allowed to respond at an extremely low rate and thus were reinforced according to the same rate.…”

Crucial Issues in the Applied Analysis of Verbal Behavior: Reflections on Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes Are High

“…Selected aspects of nondisordered conversation in typically developing individuals have been the focus of occasional behavioranalytic studies (e.g., Azrin, Holz, Ulrich, & Goldiamond, 1973;Borrero et al, 2007;Minkin et al, 1976), but collectively these studies do not comprise an imposing body of work. To create a frame of reference for this claim, compare the number of empirical behavior-analytic studies on all aspects of Skinner's analysis (e.g., Petursdottir, Peterson, & Peters, in press) with the number on topics such as operant choice or stimulus equivalence, both of which have been in the behavior-analytic mainstream for fewer years.…”

What are we doing when we translate from quantitative models?

“…Applications of the generalized matching law (Figure 2) suggest that in many of these situations behavior allocation is a common function of relative reinforcement. Figure 3 shows the core matching relation as it describes conversation (Panel A; Borrero et al, 2007), basketball shot selection (Panel B; Alferink et al, 2009), and academic behavior (Panel C; Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994).…”