Pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli independently of the overall probability of reinforcement and of the number of presentations of the conditioned reinforcer

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 446-452

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conditioned inhibition; Conditioned reinforcement; Gambling; Pigeons; Suboptimal choice

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COLOR VISION; DECISION MAKING; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PIGEONS AND DOVES; PROBABILITY; REINFORCEMENT;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLOR PERCEPTION; COLUMBIDAE; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); PROBABILITY; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

EID: 84874562858     PISSN: 00977403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0030321     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Belke, T. W., & Spetch, M. L. (1994). Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 353-366. doi:10.1901/jeab.1994.62-353.
2. Berlyne, D. E. (1957). Uncertainty and conflict: A point of contact between information-theory and behavior-theory concepts. Psychological Review, 64, 329-339. doi:10.1037/h0041135.
3. Blanco, C., Ibáñez, A., Sáiz-Ruiz, J., Blanco-Jerez, C., & Nunes, E. V. (2000). Epistemology, pathophysiology, and treatment of pathological gambling. CNS Drugs, 13, 397-407. doi:10.2165/00023210-200013060-00002.
4. Dinsmoor, J. A. (1983). Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 693-728. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00017969.
5. Fantino, E., Dunn, R., & Meck, W. (1979). Percentage reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 335-340. doi:10.1901/jeab.1979.32-335.
6. Gipson, C. D., Alessandri, J. D., Miller, H. C., & Zentall, T. R. (2009). Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 37, 289-298. doi:10.3758/LB.37.4.289.
7. Jenkins H. M., Barnes, R. A., & Barrera, F. J. (1981). Why autoshaping depends on trial spacing In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 255-284). New York, NY: Academic Press.
8. Mazur, J. E. (1996). Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting delay procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 63-73. doi:10.1901/jeab.1996.66-63.
9. Roper, K. L., & Zentall, T. R. (1999). Observing behavior in pigeons: The effect of reinforcement probability and response cost using a symmetrical choice procedure. Learning and Motivation, 30, 201-220. doi: 10.1006/lmot.1999.1030.
10. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
11. Spetch, M. L., Belke, T. W., Barnet, R. C., Dunn, R., & Pierce, W. D. (1990). Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: Effects of signal condition and terminal link length. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 219-234. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.53-219.
12. Spetch, M. L., Mondloch, M. V., Belke, T. W., & Dunn, R. (1994). Determinants of pigeons' choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22, 239-251. doi:10.3758/BF03209832.
13. Stagner, J. P., & Zentall, T. R. (2010). Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 412-416. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.3.412.
14. Stephens, D. W., & Charnov, E. L. (1982). Optimal foraging: Some simple stochastic models. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 10, 251-263. doi:10.1007/BF00302814.
15. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York, NY: Macmillan. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.55072.
17. Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. P. (2011). Maladaptive choice behavior by pigeons: An animal analog of gambling (sub-optimal human decision making behavior). Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 278, 1203-1208. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1607.