Matching theory is a general framework for understanding allocation of behavior among activities. It applies to choice in concurrent schedules and was extended to single schedules by assuming that other unrecorded behavior competes with operant behavior. Baum and Davison (2014) found that the competing activities apparently are induced by the “reinforcers” (phylogenetically important events, e.g., food) according to power functions. Combined with power‐function induction, matching theory provides new equations with greater explanatory power. Four pigeons were exposed to conditions in which 7 different schedules of food delivery were presented within each experimental session. We replicated earlier results with variable‐interval schedules: (a) a negatively accelerated increase of peck rate as food rate increased in the low range of food rates; (b) an upturn in pecking at higher rates; and (c) a downturn in pecking at extremely high food rates. When the contingency between pecking and food was removed, the food continued to induce pecking, even after 20 sessions with no contingency. A ratio schedule inserted in place of 1 variable‐interval schedule maintained peck rates comparable to peck rates maintained by short interval schedules. We explained the results by fitting equations that combined matching theory, competition, and induction.