Maladaptive "gambling" by Pigeons

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 50-56

  Zentall, Thomas R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice behavior; Conditioned reinforcer; Discriminative stimuli; Gambling; Humans; Inhibition; Pigeons

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE RADIATION; BIRD; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; GAMBLING; INHIBITION; NUMERICAL MODEL; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; CONDITIONING; DECISION MAKING; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; MALADJUSTMENT; NONHUMAN; PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING; PIGEON; PROBABILITY; REINFORCEMENT;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLUMBIDAE; GAMBLING; MODELS, ANIMAL; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

ANIMALIA; COLUMBA;

EID: 79954917219     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.12.017     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Belke T.W., Spetch M.L. Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: preference for unreliable reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1994, 62:353-366.
2. Breen R.B., Zuckerman M. 'Chasing' in gambling behavior: personality and cognitive determinants. Person. Ind. Diff. 1999, 27:1097-1111.
3. Dijksterhuis A. Think different: the merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 2004, 87:586-598.
4. Dinsmoor J.A. Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behav. Brain Sci. 1983, 6:693-728.
5. Dinsmoor J.A. The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1985, 43:365-381.
6. Evans J.St.B.T. In two minds: dual process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cog. Sci. 2003, 7:454-459.
7. Fantino E. Conditioned reinforcement. Handbook of Operant Behavior 1977, 313-339. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. W.K. Honig, J.E.R. Staddon (Eds.).
8. Fantino E., Abarca N. Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behav. Brain Sci. 1985, 8:315-330.
9. Fantino E., Dunn R., Meck W. Percentage reinforcement and choice. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1979, 32:335-340.
10. Gipson C.D., Alessandri J.D., Miller H.C., Zentall T.R. Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learn. Behav. 2009, 37:289-298.
11. Greene J.D., Morelli S.A., Lowenberg K., Nystrom L.E., Cohen J.D. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition 2008, 107:1144-1154.
12. Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psych. Rev. 2001, 108:814-834.
13. Hearst E., Besley S., Farthing G.W. Inhibition and the stimulus control of operant behavior. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1970, 14:373-409.
14. Klaczynski P.A. Metacognition and cognitive variability: a two-process model of decision making and its development. The Development of Decision Making in Children and Adolescents 2005, 39-76. Mahwah, Erlbaum, NJ. J.E. Jacobs, P.A. Klaczynski (Eds.).
15. Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U., Hsee C.K., Welch E.S. Risk as feelings. Psych. Bull. 2001, 127:267-286.
16. MacArthur R.H., Pianka E.R. On the optimal use of a patchy environment. Am. Nat. 1966, 100:603-609.
17. Mazur J.E. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. Quantitative Analysis of Behavior: vol. 5. The Effect of Delay and of Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value 1987, 55-83. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, NJ. M.L. Commons, J.E. Mazur, J.A. Nevin, H. Rachlin (Eds.).
18. Mazur J.E. Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting delay procedure. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1996, 66:63-73.
19. Rivalan M., Ahmed S.A., Dellu-Hagedorn F. Risk-prone individuals prefer the wrong options on a rat version of the Iowa Gambling Task. Biol. Psych. 2009, 66:743-749.
20. Roper K.L., Zentall T.R. Observing behavior in pigeons: the effect of reinforcement probability and response cost using a symmetrical choice procedure Learn. Motiv. 1999, 30:201-220.
21. Shannon C.E., Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication 1949, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
22. Singer R.A., Berry L.M., Zentall T.R. Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: contrast or delay reduction?. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2007, 87:275-285.
23. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., MacGregor D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004, 24:1-12.
24. Smith E.R., Mackie D.M. Social Psychology 2007, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA. 3rd ed.
25. Spetch M.L., Belke T.W., Barnet R.C., Dunn R., Pierce W.D. Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal link length. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1990, 53:219-234.
26. Spetch M.L., Mondloch M.V., Belke T.W., Dunn R. Determinants of pigeon's choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1994, 22:239-251.
27. Stagner J.P., Zentall T.R. Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psych. Bull. Rev. 2010, 17:412-416.
28. Stephens D.W., Krebs J.R. Foraging Theory 1986, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
29. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
30. Zeeb F.D., Robbins T.W., Winstanley C.A. Seratonergic and dopaminergic modulation of gambling behavior as assessed using a novel rat gambling task. Neuropsychopharmacology 2009, 34:2329-2343.
31. Zentall, T.R., Stagner, J.P. in press. Maladaptive choice behaviour by pigeons: an animal analog and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision making behaviour). Proc. Royal Soc: B., doi:10.1098.rspb.2010.1607.