When good pigeons make bad decisions: Choice with probabilistic delays and outcomes

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 104, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 241-251

  Pisklak, Jeffrey M ^a   Mcdevitt, Margaret A ^b   Dunn, Roger M ^c   Spetch, Marcia L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b MCDANIEL COLLEGE   (United States)

^c SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conditioned reinforcement; Delay of reinforcement; Key peck; Pigeons; Probabilistic choice; Suboptimal choice

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING; DELAY DISCOUNTING; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; LEARNING; MOTIVATION; PIGEONS AND DOVES; REINFORCEMENT;

ANIMALS; ANTICIPATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLUMBIDAE; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DECISION MAKING; DELAY DISCOUNTING; MOTIVATION; PROBABILITY LEARNING; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

EID: 84949990028     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: 19383711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jeab.177     Document Type: Article

References (37)

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(3), 353-366. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-353
2. Blanchard, T. C., Hayden, B. Y., & Bromberg-Martin, E. S. ( 2015). Orbitofrontal cortex uses distinct codes for different choice attributes in decisions motivated by curiosity. Neuron, 85(3), 602-614. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.050
3. Bromberg-Martin, E.S., & Hikosaka, O. ( 2009). Midbrain dopamine neurons signal preference for advance information about upcoming rewards. Neuron, 63(1), 119-126. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.009
4. Burns, M., & Domjan, M. ( 2000). Sign tracking in domesticated quail with one trial a day: Generality across CS and US parameters. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28(1), 109-119. doi: 10.3758/BF03199776
5. Cumming, G. ( 2012). Cohen's d. In Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
6. Dunn, R., & Spetch, M.L. ( 1990). Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53(2), 201-218. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-201
7. Fantino, E. ( 1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723-730. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723
8. Fantino, E. ( 1977). Conditioned reinforcement: Choice and information. In W. Honig & J. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 327-328). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9. Fantino, E. ( 2012). Optimal and non-optimal behavior across species. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 7, 44-54. Retrieved from http://comparative-cognition-and-behavior-reviews.org/doi:10.3819/ccbr.2012.70003
10. Gipson, C.D., Alessandri, J.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
11. Grace, R. C. ( 1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113-129.
12. Hearst, E., & Jenkins, H. M. ( 1974). Sign-tracking: The stimulus-reinforcer relation and directed action. Austin, TX: The Psychonomic Society
13. Kendall, S.B. ( 1974). Preference for intermittent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21(3), 463-473. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-463
14. Kendall, S.B. ( 1985). A further study of choice and percentage reinforcement. Behavioural Processes, 10, 399-413. doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(85)90040-3
15. Laude, J.R., Beckmann, J.S., Daniels, C.W., & Zentall, T.R. ( 2014). Impulsivity affects suboptimal gambling-like choice by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 2-11. doi: 10.1037/xan0000001
16. Laude, J.R., Stagner, J. P., & Zentall, T.R. ( 2014). Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 12-21. doi: 10.1037/xan0000010
17. Ludvig, E.A., Spetch, M.L., Dunn, R., & McDevitt, M.A. ( 2015). When good news leads to bad choices: A reinforcement-learning model of information-driven suboptimal choice. The Multi-disciplinary Conference on Reinforcement Learning and Decision Making, Edmonton, Canada.
18. Magalhães, P., & White, K. G. ( 2013). Sunk cost and work ethic effects reflect suboptimal choice between different work requirements. Behavioural Processes, 94, 55-59.
19. Mattson, K. M., Hucks, A., Grace, R. C., & McLean, A. P. ( 2010). Signaled and unsignaled terminal links in concurrent chains I: Effects of reinforcer probability and immediacy. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 94(3), 327-352. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.94-327
20. Mazur, J.E. ( 1989). Theories of probabilistic reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 87-99. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-87
21. Mazur, J.E. ( 1991). Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: Effect of delay and conditioned reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 63-77. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-63
22. McDevitt, M.A., Spetch, M.L., & Dunn, R. ( 1997). Contiguity and conditioned reinforcement in probabilistic choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 317-327. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-317
23. Molet, M., Miller, H. C., Laude, J. R., Kirk, C., Manning, B., & Zentall, T. R. ( 2012). Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice? Learning & Behavior, 40(4), 439-447. doi: 10.3758/s13420-012-0065-7
24. Pattison, K. F., Laude, J. R., & Zentall, T. R. ( 2013). Environmental enrichment affects suboptimal, risky, gambling-like choice by pigeons. Animal Cognition, 16(3), 429-434. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0583-x
25. Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 2.0]. ( 2012). Retrieved from http://www.pstnet.com
26. R Development Core Team. ( 2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
27. Schwartz, B., & Gamzu, E. ( 1977). Pavlovian control of operant behavior: An analysis of autoshaping and its implications for operant conditioning. In W. Honig & J. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 53-60). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28. Shepperd, J.A., & McNulty, J.K. ( 2002). The affective consequences of expected and unexpected outcomes. Psychological Science, 13, 85-88. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00416
29. 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
30. Spetch, M.L., & Dunn, R. ( 1987). Choice between reliable and unreliable outcomes: Mixed percentage-reinforcement in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 57-72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-57
31. 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
32. Stagner, J.P., Laude, J. R., & Zentall, T.R. ( 2011). Sub-optimal choice in pigeons does not depend on avoidance of the stimulus associated with the absence of reinforcement. Learning and Motivation, 42, 282-287. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2011.09.001
33. 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
34. Zentall, T.R. ( 2015). When animals misbehave: Analogs of human biases and suboptimal choice. Behavioural Processes, 112, 3-13. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.001
35. Zentall, T.R., & Laude, J.R. ( 2013). Do pigeons gamble? I wouldn't bet against it. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 271-277. doi: 10.1177/0963721413480173
36. Zentall, T.R., & Stagner, J. ( 2011). Maladaptive choice behavior by pigeons: An animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behavior). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1203-1208. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1607
37. Zentall, T. R., Laude, J. R, Stagner J. P., & Smith, A. P. ( 2015). Suboptimal choice by pigeons: Evidence that the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than its frequency determines choice. Psychological Record, 65, 223-229. doi: 10.1007/s40732-015-0119-2