Four-alternative choice violates the constant-ratio rule.

Six pigeons responded on a four-key concurrent variable-interval schedule in which a 27:9:3:1 distribution of reinforcers between the keys changed every 10 reinforcers. Their behaviour quickly came under the control of this changing four-way reinforcer ratio. However, preference between a pair of keys depended not only on the relative reinforcer rates on those keys, but also on the absolute levels of those rates. This contradicts the constant-ratio rule that underpins the matching approach to choice, but is predicted by a contingency-discriminability model that assumes that organisms may occasionally misattribute reinforcers to a response that did not produce them. Reinforcers produced strong preference pulses, or transient increases in responding on the just-reinforced key. Despite accurate tracking of the reinforcer ratio, reinforcers obtained late in components and from leaner keys still produced strong pulses, suggesting both extended and local control of behaviour. Patterns of switching between keys were graded and similarly controlled by the reinforcer rates on each key. Whether considered in terms of switching, local preference pulses, or extended preference, behaviour was controlled by a rapidly changing four-way reinforcer ratio in a graduated, continuous manner that is unlikely to be explained by a simple heuristic such as fix-and-sample.