Welcome back to Behavior by Design! As always, thank you for stopping by and continuing to follow along as I share what I’m learning at UMass Global and how those concepts connect with my work in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis.
Last week, we explored emergent relations and the fascinating idea that learning can extend beyond what is directly taught. This week, our focus shifted from how new learning emerges to something we experience every single day: choice.
Why do we choose one restaurant over another? Why do we reach for our phones when we should probably be studying? Why might a learner continue engaging in a challenging behavior even after being taught a more appropriate alternative?
Behavior analysis gives us an interesting way to think about these questions through a principle called the Matching Law.
So, What Is the Matching Law?
The Matching Law describes how we tend to allocate our behavior among available response options based on the reinforcement those options produce. Put simply, we tend to do more of what works for us.
When two or more behaviors are available, the amount of responding allocated to each option tends to correspond with the relative reinforcement obtained from that option. Reinforcement that is more frequent, immediate, higher quality, or requires less effort can influence which response we choose.
And once I started thinking about the Matching Law this week, I realized just how often we can see this principle playing out in everyday life.
Imagine you have two coffee shops near your house. Both make your favorite drink, but one consistently has a shorter line, remembers your order, and gets your drink right. Assuming everything else is relatively equal, which one are you more likely to visit?
Probably the one that has historically provided the better experience.
That’s response allocation in action.
Response Allocation: Where Does Our Behavior Go?
Response allocation simply refers to how we distribute our behavior among the different options available to us.
Think about how you spend an hour of free time. You could read, exercise, watch television, scroll through social media, call a friend, or take a nap. You technically have several options available, but you’re probably not going to divide your time equally among all of them.
Your previous experiences with each activity matter.
If checking social media provides immediate and frequent reinforcement while studying produces a payoff that feels much further away, it’s not difficult to understand why your phone might win that competition more often than you’d like!
Looking at behavior this way also moves us away from simply saying someone “doesn’t want to” make a better choice. Instead, we can ask a more useful question:
What reinforcement is available for each response?
That question becomes especially important in clinical ABA.
When Appropriate and Challenging Behaviors Compete
One thing that stood out to me this week is how useful the Matching Law can be when thinking about replacement behaviors.
Imagine a learner engages in aggression when presented with a difficult task. Historically, aggression has resulted in the task being removed and the learner getting a break.
We then teach the learner to appropriately say “Break, please.”
Great! We’ve taught a functionally appropriate alternative.
But there’s a problem.
What happens if requesting a break only works occasionally, while aggression continues to result in an immediate escape from the task?
From the learner’s perspective, aggression may still be the more effective response.
This is why teaching a replacement behavior alone isn’t necessarily enough. We also have to consider the reinforcement available for that behavior compared with the reinforcement available for competing behaviors.
If an appropriate break request consistently produces a brief break quickly while aggression no longer produces the same reinforcement, the environment begins favoring the appropriate response. Over time, we would expect the learner to allocate more responding toward appropriately requesting a break.
And I think that’s such an important perspective.
Instead of only asking, “How do we stop this behavior?” we can also ask:
“How do we make the appropriate behavior more effective and worthwhile for the learner?”
Reinforcement Schedules Matter
This week’s learning also brought us back to schedules of reinforcement, but from a different perspective.
When multiple response options are available simultaneously, each may operate according to its own reinforcement schedule. These are known as concurrent schedules.
For example, imagine a child can choose between two activities. Playing with one toy frequently results in adult interaction, while playing with another rarely receives attention. If attention is reinforcing for that child, we may see them spend more time engaging with the first toy.
The Matching Law helps us understand why behavior may become distributed unevenly across those options.
We also revisited other compound schedules, including multiple and mixed schedules. In a multiple schedule, different reinforcement schedules alternate and each is associated with a distinct stimulus. In a mixed schedule, the schedules also alternate, but there is no distinct stimulus signaling which schedule is currently in effect.
Understanding these arrangements helps us appreciate just how much the environment and particularly the availability of reinforcement can influence behavior.
Bringing It Back to Clinical Practice
What I appreciate about concepts like the Matching Law is that they encourage us to look beyond the behavior we’re observing and examine the contingencies surrounding it.
When we’re teaching communication, independence, social skills, or other replacement behaviors, we have to ask whether those responses actually work for the learner.
Is reinforcement immediate enough?
Is it valuable enough?
Is the appropriate response relatively easy to perform?
And perhaps most importantly, does the challenging behavior still produce a better outcome?
These are important questions because meaningful behavior change isn’t simply about telling someone which response they should choose. It’s about arranging the environment so that appropriate behaviors have a meaningful opportunity to compete successfully with less desirable alternatives.
That’s one of my biggest takeaways from this week’s learning: choice doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Our behavior is constantly interacting with the consequences available in our environment, and understanding that relationship gives behavior analysts another powerful tool for designing effective, individualized interventions.
Final Exams Are Here!
And just like that, we’re just one week away from the end of another course at UMass Global!
It’s amazing to look back at how much we’ve covered from foundational behavioral concepts to verbal behavior, emergent relations, response allocation, and now the Matching Law. There has been A WHOLE LOT to learn, but seeing how these concepts connect with one another and with what I am experiencing in clinical practice has made the journey incredibly rewarding!
So, wish me luck! I’ll be trading some of my usual writing time for study time next week, and hopefully allocating plenty of my own behavior toward studying. See what I did there? š
Thank you again for continuing to read, learn, and grow alongside me here at Behavior by Design. I’ll see you on the other side of finals!
See you soon!
Rose Ally xoxo















