When animals misbehave: Analogs of human biases and suboptimal choice

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 112, Issue , 2015, Pages 3-13

  Zentall, Thomas R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Base rate neglect; Gambling; Justification of effort; Less is more; Suboptimal choice; Sunk cost

Indexed keywords

COST ANALYSIS; GAMBLING; HEURISTICS; HUMAN BEHAVIOR; INVESTMENT; PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT;

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; GAMBLING; HUMAN; NEGLECT; NONHUMAN; PIGEON; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROBABILITY; SUNK COST EFFECT; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DOG; PIGEONS AND DOVES; PSYCHOLOGY; REWARD; STATISTICAL BIAS;

ANIMALIA; COLUMBA;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLUMBIDAE; DOGS; GAMBLING; HUMANS; REWARD;

EID: 84921923368     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alessi S.M., Petry N.M. Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure. Behav. Process. 2003, 64:345-354.
2. Arantes J., Grace R.G. Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations. Learn. Behav. 2008, 36:1-11.
3. Aronson E., Mills J. The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1959, 59:177-181.
4. 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.
5. Bradshaw C.M., Szabadi E. Choice between delayed reinforcers in a discrete-trials schedule: the effect of deprivation. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1992, 44:1-16.
6. Breen R.B., Zuckerman M. 'Chasing' in gambling behavior: personality and cognitive determinants. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1999, 27:1097-1111.
7. Cicerone R.A. Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1976, 25:257-261.
8. Chernev A. The dieter's paradox. J. Consum. Psychol. 2011, 21:178-183.
9. Clement T.S., Feltus J., Kaiser D.H., Zentall T.R. 'Work ethic' in pigeons: reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2000, 7:100-106.
10. DiGian K.A., Friedrich A.M., Zentall T.R. Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2004, 11:889-895.
11. DiGian K.A., Zentall T.R. Matching-to-sample in pigeons: in the absence of sample memory, sample frequency is a better predictor of comparison choice than the probability of reinforcement for comparison choice. Learn. Behav. 2007, 35:242-261.
12. Dinsmoor J.A. Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behav. Brain Sci. 1983, 6:693-728.
13. Dixon M.R., Marley J., Jacobs E.A. Delay discounting by pathological gamblers. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 2003, 36:449-458.
14. Eisenberger R., Masterson F.A., Lowman K. Effects of previous delay of reward, generalized effort, and deprivation on impulsiveness. Learn. Motiv. 1982, 13:378-389.
15. Fantino E., Abarca N. Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behav. Brain Sci. 1985, 8:315-330.
16. Fantino E., Dunn R., Meck W. Percentage reinforcement and choice. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1979, 32:335-340.
17. Fantino E., Kanevsky I.G., Charlton S. Teaching pigeons to commit base-rate neglect. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 16:820-825.
18. Festinger L., Carlsmith J.M. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1959, 58:203-210.
19. Friedrich A.M., Clement T.S., Zentall T.R. Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement. Learn. Behav. 2005, 33:337-342.
20. Friedrich A.M., Zentall T.R. Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Behav. Process. 2004, 67:405-415.
21. 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.
22. Goodie A.S., Fantino E. An experientially derived base-rate error in humans. Psychol. Sci. 1995, 6:101-106.
23. Green L., Myerson J., Lichtman D., Rosen S., Fry A. Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: the role of age and income. Psychol. Aging 1996, 11:79-84.
24. Hartl J.A., Fantino E. Choice as a function of reinforcement ratios in delayed matching to sample. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1996, 66:11-27.
25. Hearst E., Besley S., Farthing G.W. Inhibition and the stimulus control of operant behavior. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1970, 14:373-409.
26. Hsee C.K. Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1998, 11:107-121.
27. Kacelnik A., Bateson M. Risky theories: the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am. Zool. 1996, 36:402-434.
28. Kacelnik A., Marsh B. Cost can increase preference in starlings. Anim. Behav. 2002, 63:245-250.
29. Kahneman D. Evaluation by moments, past and future. Choices, Values and Frames 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York. D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (Eds.).
30. Kahneman D., Tversky A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol. Rev. 1973, 80:237-251. 10.1037/h0034747.
31. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
32. Kralik J.D., Xu E.R., Knight E.J., Khan S.A., Levine J.W. When less is more: evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e46240. 10.1371/journal.pone.0046240.
33. Laude J.R., Pattison K.F., Zentall T.R. Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2012, 19:884-891.
34. Laude J.R., Beckmann J.S., Daniels C.W., Zentall T.R. Impulsivity affects gambling-like choice by pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 2014, 40:2-11.
35. Laude J.R., Stagner J.P., Zentall T.R. Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 2014, 40:12-21.
36. Lionello K.M., Urcuioli P.J. Control by sample location in pigeons' matching to sample. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1998, 70:235-251.
37. List J.A. Reversals of a different kind: the "more is less" phenomenon. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92:1636-1643.
38. Lyk-Jensen S.V. New evidence from the grey area: Danish results for at-risk gambling. J. Gambl. Stud. 2010, 26:455-467.
39. MacArthur R.H., Pianka E.R. On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am. Nat. 1966, 100:603-609.
40. Macaskill A., Hackenberg T.D. The sunk cost effect with pigeons: some determinants of decisions about persistence. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2012, 97:85-100.
41. MacKillop J., Anderson E.J., Castelda B.A., Mattson R.E., Donovick P.J. Divergent validity of measures of cognitive distortions, impulsivity, and time perspective in pathological gambling. J. Gambl. Stud. 2006, 22:339-354.
42. Magalhães P., White K.G. The effect of a prior investment on choice: the sunk cost effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2014, 40:22-37.
43. Marsh B., Schuck-Paim C., Kacelnik A. Energetic state during learning affects foraging choices in starlings. Behav. Ecol. 2004, 15:396-399.
44. Mazur J.E. Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting delay procedure. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1996, 66:63-73.
45. Molet M., Miller H.C., Laude J.R., Kirk C., Manning B., Zentall T.R. Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?. Learn. Behav. 2012, 40:439-447.
46. Navarro A.D., Fantino E. The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2005, 83:1-13.
47. Nisbett R.E., Borgida E. Attribution and the psychology of prediction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1975, 32:932-943.
48. Pattison K.F., Laude J.R., Zentall T.R. Social enrichment affects suboptimal, risky, gambling-like choice by pigeons. Anim. Cogn. 2013, 16:429-434.
49. Pattison K.F., Zentall T.R. Suboptimal choice by dogs: when less is better than more. Anim. Cogn. 2014, 17(4):1019-1022.
50. Pattison K.F., Zentall T.R., Watanabe S. Sunk cost: pigeons (Columba livia) too show bias to complete a task rather than shift to another. J. Comp. Psychol. 2012, 126:1-9.
51. Perry J.L., Stairs D.J., Bardo M.T. Impulsive choice and environmental enrichment: effects of d-amphetamine and methylphenidate. Behav. Brain Res. 2008, 193:48-54.
52. Petry N.M. Pathological gamblers, with and without substance use disorders, discount delayed rewards at high rates. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2001, 110:82-487.
53. Petry N.M., Casarella T. Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999, 56:25-32.
54. Pompilio L., Kacelnik A. State-dependent learning and suboptimal choice: when starlings prefer long over short delays to food. Anim. Behav. 2005, 70:571-578.
55. Pompilio L., Kacelnik A., Behmer S.T. State-dependent learned valuation drives choice in an invertebrate. Science 2006, 311:1613-1615.
56. Snyderman M. Optimal prey selection: the effects of food deprivation. Behav. Anal. Lett. 1983, 3:359-369.
57. 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.
58. Spetch M.L., Mondloch M.V., Belke T.W., Dunn R. Determinants of pigeons' choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1994, 22:239-251.
59. Stagner J.P., Laude J.R., Zentall T.R. Sub-optimal choice in pigeons does not depend on avoidance of the stimulus associated with the absence of reinforcement. Learn. Motiv. 2011, 42:282-287.
60. Stagner J.P., Laude J.R., Zentall T.R. Pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli independently of the overall probability of reinforcement and of the number of presentations of the conditioned reinforcer. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 2012, 38:446-452.
61. Stagner J.P., Zentall T.R. Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychol. Bull. Rev. 2010, 17:412-416.
62. Stephens D.W. The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim. Behav. 1981, 29:628-629.
63. Stephens D.W., Krebs J.R. Foraging Theory 1986, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
64. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychol. Bull. 1971, 76:105-110.
65. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
66. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Evidential impact of base rates. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases 1985, 153-160. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.).
67. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J. Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: a test of within-trial contrast. Learn. Behav. 2008, 36:12-18.
68. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J., Lionello-DeNolf K.M. Failure to replicate the "work ethic" effect in pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2007, 87:383-399.
69. Zentall T.R. Perspectives on social learning. J. Comp. Psychol. 2012, 126:114-128.
70. Zentall T.R., Clement T.S. Memory mechanisms in pigeons: evidence of base-rate neglect. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 2002, 28:111-115.
71. Zentall T.R., Laude J.R., Case J.P., Daniels C.W. Less means more for pigeons but not always. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2014, 10.3758/s13423-014-0626-1.
72. Zentall T.R., Singer R.A., Miller H.C. Matching-to-sample by pigeons: the dissociation of samples from reinforcement contingencies. Behav. Process. 2008, 78:185-190.
73. Zentall T.R., Stagner J.P. Maladaptive choice behavior by pigeons: an animal analog of gambling (sub-optimal human decision making behavior). Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2011, 278:1203-1208.
74. Oxford Handbook of Comparative Cognition 2012, Oxford University Press, New York. T.R. Zentall, E.A. Wasserman (Eds.).