The present study investigated conditions under which the conditioned reinforcement principles of delay-reduction theory and views based on simple maximization of reinforcement rate make ordinally opposing predictions with respect to foraging-related choice behavior. The use of variable-ratio schedules in the choice phase also represents an extension of delay-reduction theory to schedules that may better mimic the effort involved in searching. Pigeons responded on modified concurrent-chains schedules in which equal variable-ratio schedules led to unequal variable-interval outcomes and unequal reinforcer amounts. All 4 subjects completed a minimum of two replications of conditions for which the predictions of delay-reduction theory and a simple rate-maximizing theory were opposed. Results were consistent with delay reduction's ordinal predictions in 11 of 11 replications of the divergent predictions favoring the smaller, more immediate alternative. The predictions of rate maximization were upheld only when they were consistent with those of delay reduction. Results are discussed in terms of conditioned reinforcement, sensitivity to reductions in delay to food, and possible rules of thumb that may be useful in characterizing foraging.