It could be that we prefer to use the one with the most on the roll because it is the "least used" and thus the "least touched already." Kind of like the first newspaper in the rack or the front can on the shelf. Or, we don't want to be the one who has to change the roll... Now I have disclosed some of my neuroses and used up all my posts today. How sylvestrian of me. cd
Carol DeVolder, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Department of Psychology St. Ambrose University Davenport, Iowa 52803 phone: 563-333-6482 e-mail: [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Ken Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:48 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] the matching law and toilet paper -- another hypothesis Symmetry sounds like melioration to me -- a vague explanation that is difficult to disconfirm. I like a combination of stimulus salience and momentary maximizing. The larger toliet roll is bigger, more salient, and captures behavior more effectively at that moment in time. Over time, changes in size between the rolls produce the superficial appearance of matching. We could model this in the lab by changing the intensity of the keylights. My approach suggests that manipulation of the change-over delay will have little effect. Anybody got a triple of pigeons? Ken PS - tongue firmly in cheek Paul Brandon wrote: > > 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] <mailto:[email protected]> > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [email protected] Professor Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
