Despite claims to the contrary all leading theories about operant choice ma
y be seen as models of optimality. Although melioration is often contrasted
with global maximization, both make the same core assumptions as other Ver
sions of optimality theory, including momentary maximizing, hill climbing,
and the various versions of optimal foraging theory. The present experiment
aimed to test melioration against more global optimality and to apply the
visit-by-visit analysis suggested by foraging theory. Rats were exposed to
concurrent schedules in which one alternative was always variable-ratio 10
and the other alternative was a variable-interval schedule. Although choice
relations varied from rat to rat, the overall results roughly confirmed th
e matching law a result often taken to support melioration. Pooling the dat
a across sessions and across rats, however, resulted in no increment in uns
ystematic variance, lending support to the contention by Ziriax and Silberb
erg (1984) that the choice relation is partly constrained. When the data we
re analyzed at the level of visits, the results either disconfirmed predict
ions of melioration or showed regularities about which melioration is silen
t. Instead, performance tended toward a rough optimization, in which respon
ding favored the variable ratio, but with relatively brief visits to the va
riable interval. There were no asymmetries in travel or variability that wo
uld indicate that different processes were involved in generating visits at
the two different schedules. The findings point toward a more global optim
ality model than melioration and demonstrate the value of per-visit analysi
s in the study of concurrent performances.