On Mar 4, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Rick Froman wrote: > We are talking about Herrnstein’s Matching Law in my Theories of > Learning class this week and as I was in the restroom, I started > contemplating the fact that whenever two rolls are equally > available, they dwindle at approximately the same rate. Of course, > that defeats the purpose of two rolls which is so you can use up > one and then use the back up until the janitor can re-stock the > other roll. Some toilet roll racks have been designed to actively > thwart this tendency by making it so the new roll doesn’t drop into > place until the old one is used up and removed. > > In those situations where both are always available, I wonder if > this is an example of the Matching Law in which the number > responses made to each choice will match the work required to > achieve the reinforcement. Therefore, if both require the same > amount of work, you would expect both rolls to be depleted at a > similar rate. If one was more difficult to obtain (or contained a > lower quality of toilet paper), I wonder if matching would still > hold (the degree to which one was superior or easier to access > would match the rate at which it was used) or if people would just > use the easier to access or the superior quality until it ran out > and then switch to the other one?
I'm not sure that the magnitude of the reinforcers or response cost is high enough to affect choice in this situation. For a behavioral explanation I'd look at the individual's history of learned rules. I suppose someone could make a dissertation out of a functional analysis of relative position and size or TP rolls. Of course, you'd have to add a changeover delay to minimize switching between rolls ;-) Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
