Literature DB >> 11901961

Probability matching: encouraging optimal responding in humans.

Edmund Fantino1, Ali Esfandiari.   

Abstract

Two hundred undergraduate students participated in a repeated-trials binary choice procedure in which choice of one outcome was correct on 75% of trials. Subjects received 192 trials and were divided into five conditions: (1) control; (2) subjects were given the actual probabilities; (3) subjects were told if they did well they could leave early; (4) competition condition; (5) midway through the task subjects were asked to recommend a strategy for another subject. Half of the subjects in each group were told that the best they could do was to be correct on 75% of the trials. This manipulation permitted assessment of the hypothesis that subjects in probability-matching tasks are seeking a strategy that will be correct on 100% of the trials. The results partially confirmed this hypothesis. In addition, two of the variables improved performance significantly (giving probabilities and asking subjects to recommend a strategy). However, while subjects in all groups improved significantly over trials, optimal choice did not occur in this task.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11901961     DOI: 10.1037/h0087385

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol        ISSN: 1196-1961


  18 in total

1.  Probability matching and strategy availability.

Authors:  Derek J Koehler; Greta James
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-09

2.  Taking the easy way out? Increasing implementation effort reduces probability maximizing under cognitive load.

Authors:  Christin Schulze; Ben R Newell
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-07

3.  Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall Dilemma.

Authors:  Walter T Herbranson; Julia Schroeder
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.231

4.  Doomed to repeat the successes of the past: history is best forgotten for repeated choices with nonstationary payoffs.

Authors:  Tim Rakow; Katherine Miler
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-10

5.  GAMBLING: SOMETIMES UNSEEMLY; NOT WHAT IT SEEMS.

Authors:  Edmund Fantino; Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino
Journal:  Anal Gambl Behav       Date:  2008

6.  The Monty Hall dilemma in pigeons: effect of investment in initial choice.

Authors:  Jessica P Stagner; Rebecca Rayburn-Reeves; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-10

7.  Striving for perfection and falling short: The influence of goals on probability matching.

Authors:  Jie Gao; James E Corter
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-07

8.  Error discounting in probabilistic category learning.

Authors:  Stewart Craig; Stephan Lewandowsky; Daniel R Little
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Choice as a function of reinforcer "hold": from probability learning to concurrent reinforcement.

Authors:  Greg Jensen; Allen Neuringer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2008-10

10.  Is probability matching smart? Associations between probabilistic choices and cognitive ability.

Authors:  Keith E Stanovich
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.