The law of equalization: what is it and what does it explain in psychology?

Let us see what this concept, developed by Richard J. Herrnstein and associated with behaviorism, consists of.

In the psychology of learning, numerous phenomena have been studied that have their theoretical basis in operant conditioning. Within this we find a concept called the law of equalization.

In this article we are going to see what the law of equalization consists of and how it was formulated.

Richard J. Herrnstein and operant conditioning

Operant conditioning, introduced by B. F. Skinner, is a form of learning by means of which a subject (human or animal) is more likely to repeat forms of behavior that carry positive consequences and less likely to repeat those that carry positive consequences and less likely to repeat those with negative consequences.

The law of equalization was originally formulated by Richard J. Herrnstein (1961) because of an experiment with pigeons in concurrent variable-interval schedules (i.e., schedules where the criterion for administering reinforcement is the variable time elapsed since the last reinforcer was presented). We will see later and in more detail what this type of programs consist of.

In this experiment, the pigeons were given two buttons on a Skinner box. Each button resulted in different food reward rates. It was observed how the pigeons tended to peck the button that produced the higher food reward more frequently than the other button. Moreover, they did so at a rate similar to the reward rate.

What is the law of equalization?

The matching law is a quantitative relationship established between the relative rates of reinforcement and the relative rates of response. during the development of concurrent reinforcement programs. It simply states that there is a correlation between behavior and environment.

It is a law that has helped psychologists and behavior analysts relate behavior to environment and develop equations that clearly show how these two covary.

The law of matching suggests that the rate of a subject's response in an environment will be proportional to the amount or duration of positive reinforcement administered.. Thus, the more positive reinforcement that has been administered, the higher the response rate (and vice versa). Herrstein established this relative response rate as a law of behavior.

It is applied with sufficient reliability when non-human subjects are exposed to concurrent variable-interval programs, and its applicability in other situations is less clear, depending on the hypotheses formulated and the details of the experimental situation.

Mechanisms and theories

The law of equalization has been experimentally tested in different speciesas well as in groups of subjects (not only individually).

It is a descriptive law of nature, and not a mechanistic law, since it does not explain the mechanisms responsible for the distribution of responses. Moreover, it ignores when individual responses occur.

There are three types of theories that attempt to explain this law; they are the following.

Molar theories

They explain mainly sets of responses and are associated with the total distribution of responses and with the reinforcers that occur in the contexts in which choices have to be made.

Molecular theories

Focus on what happens at the level of individual responses and consider equalization as the net result of these individual choices. consider equalization as the net result of these individual choices..

Enhancement theories

Focus on behavioral characteristics that are neither molar nor molecular, but somewhere in between.

Choice behavior: concurrent programs

The law of equalization, as we have seen, arises from concurrent programs involving choice behavior. The simplest choice situation is based on two choice responses, each of which is followed by a reinforcer..

Concurrent programs occur at the same time (or concurrently), and the subject is free to switch from one response key to the other.

One of its generalizations is that it refers to forced-choice situations (concurrent programs of reason), where it is mandatory to choose one of the options. Thus, in forced-choice programs, the way to comply with the law of matching is to respond to only one alternative. For the subject, the most appropriate strategy will be to choose the best alternative and keep it..

Deviations in the matching law

Sometimes the relative rates of responding are not always exactly equal to the relative rates of reinforcement in each response alternative; this is because other factors may be influencing.

We speak then of two different situations: under-equalization and over-equalization. In undermatching, the best option is less chosen than the matching law predicts. In over-equalization, on the other hand, the best option is chosen more than the law predicts.

The variables that determine the deviations discussed above are as follows:

Use of different response topographies for each alternative.

These involve different types of effort; for example, flapping (alternative A) and tapping a key (alternative B).

The use of different reinforcers for each alternative

This means that equivalence cannot be easily established.

Difficulty in switching from one alternative to another

For example, let's think about subway transfers. Switching from one task to another involves some delay (difficulty or effort for the subject). (difficulty or effort for the subject).

Bibliographical references:

• Herrnstein, R.J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of responses as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 4, 267-72.
• Domjan, M. (2009), Principles of learning and behavior, Madrid (Spain): Thomson.