Is there a decisive test between matching and maximizing?

Reinforcers under typical concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be (a) earned and obtained during the variable-interval component, (b) earned and obtained during the variable-ratio component, or (c) earned during the variable-ratio component and obtained during the variable-interval component. Categories a and b, which have no bearing on matching versus maximizing accounts of choice, were set at zero. The rate of Category c reinforcers and the duration of a changeover delay were varied. Simple matching, which predicts exclusive choice of the variable-interval component, and strict maximizing of overall reinforcement rate, which predicts a bias towards the variable-ratio component, were both disconfirmed: Subjects spent approximately 25% of their time in the variable-ratio component, contrary to the matching prediction, but earned only about one third of the reinforcers predicted by strict maximizing. However, maximizing describes the findings functionally in terms of discounting of delayed reinforcers; matching may describe the data in terms of a restructuring of the alternatives. Matching and maximizing are not competing theories about the fundamental nature of choice, but compatible points of view that may reveal environmental function and behavioral structure.