Sub-optimal choice by pigeons: Failure to support the Allais paradox

Learning and Motivation

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 245-254

  Zentall, Thomas R ^a   Stagner, Jessica P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Certainty effect; Conditioned reinforcement; Contrast; Delay reduction; Pigeons; Sub optimal choice; The Allais paradox

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960563304     PISSN: 00239690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2011.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Allais M. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école Américaine. Econometrica 1953, 21:503-546.
2. Amsel A. The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations. Psychological Bulletin 1958, 55:102-119.
3. Belke T.W., Spetch M.L. Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1994, 62:353-366.
4. Blanco C., Ibáñez A., Sáiz-Ruiz J., Blanco-Jerez C., Nunes E.V. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment of pathological gambling. CNS Drugs 2000, 13:397-407.
5. Dinsmoor J.A. Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1983, 6:693-728.
6. Fantino E., Abarca N. Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1985, 8:315-330.
7. Fantino E., Dunn R., Meck W. Percentage reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1979, 32:335-340.
8. Gipson C.D., Alessandri J.D., Miller H.C., Zentall T.R. Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learning & Behavior 2009, 37:289-298.
9. Kacelnik A., Bateson M. Risky theories: The effects of variance on foraging decisions. American Zoologist 1996, 36:402-434.
10. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
11. Mazur J.E. Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting delay procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1996, 66:63-73.
12. Rachlin H., Raineri A., Cross D. Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1991, 55:233-244.
13. Roper K.L., Zentall T.R. Observing behavior in pigeons: The effect of reinforcement probability and response cost using a symmetrical choice procedure. Learning and Motivation 1999, 30:201-220.
14. Shafir S., Reich T., Tsur E., Erev I., Lotem A. Perceptual accuracy and conflicting effects of certainty on risk-taking behaviour. Nature 2008, 453:917-921.
15. 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. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1990, 53:219-234.
16. Spetch M.L., Mondloch M.V., Belke T.W., Dunn R. Determinants of pigeons' choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Animal Learning& Behavior 1994, 22:239-251.
17. Stagner J.P., Zentall T.R. Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review 2010, 17:412-416.
18. Wearden J.H., Ferrara A. Stimulus spacing effects in temporal bisection by humans. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1995, 48B:289-310.
19. Zentall T.R., Sherburne L.M. Transfer of value from S+ to S- in a simultaneous discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 1994, 20:176-183.
20. Zentall T.R., Singer R.A. Within-trial contrast: Pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than less aversive event. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2007, 88:131-149.
21. Zentall T.R., Stagner J.P. Maladaptive choice behavior by pigeons: An animal analog ofgambling (sub-optimal human decision making behavior). Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences 2011, 278:1203-1208.