Three pigeons were trained on a matching procedure involving a sample component and a choice component. Responding in the sample component, according to either a differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate schedule on some trials or a differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior schedule on other trials, produced access to the choice component in which each of two keys was illuminated with a unique color. The correct choice response was defined by the contingency that was met to produce the choice. The food hopper operated for 1.5 seconds following an appropriate sample response and for 3 seconds following a correct choice response. A signal‐detection analysis showed that variations in the probability of presentation of the different contingencies systematically affected response bias but not sensitivity to the contingencies as stimuli. Substitution of a blackout for food at the end of the sample component did not differentially affect performance, but elimination of the delay between sample and choice components generally increased the sensitivity measure. The findings suggest a role for reinforcement contingency discrimination in schedule‐co