ON THE FALSIFIABILITY OF MATCHING THEORY

Both the original and the purely algebraic versions of matching theory can be asserted in forms that allow for commonly observed deviations from matching (bias, undermatching, and overmatching), and the recent finding of a variable k does not disconfirm these versions of matched theory.

Abstract

Herrnstein's matching theory requires the parameter, k, which appears in the single-alternative form of the matching equation, to remain invariant with respect to changes in reinforcement parameters like magnitude or immediacy. Recent experiments have disconfirmed matching theory by showing that the invariant-k requirement does not hold. However, the theory can be asserted in a purely algebraic form that does not require an invariant k and that is not disconfirmed by the recent findings. In addition, both the original and the purely algebraic versions of matching theory can be asserted in forms that allow for commonly observed deviations from matching (bias, undermatching, and overmatching). The recent finding of a variable k does not disconfirm these versions of matching theory either. As a consequence, matching remains a viable theory of behavior, the strength of which lies in its general conceptualization of all behavior as choice, and in its unified mathematical treatment of single- and multialternative environments.