Literature DB >> 19815925

Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons.

Cassandra D Gipson1, Jérôme J D Alessandri, Holly C Miller, Thomas R Zentall.   

Abstract

When pigeons are given a choice between an initial-link alternative that results in either a terminal-link stimulus correlated with 100% reinforcement or a stimulus correlated with 0% reinforcement (overall 50% reinforcement) and another initial-link alternative that always results in a terminal-link stimulus correlated with 100% reinforcement, some pigeons show a preference for the initial-link alternative correlated with 50% reinforcement. Using this procedure, in Experiment 1, we found a relatively modest preference for 100% over 50% reinforcement. In Experiment 2, we decreased the reinforcement density for the second initial-link alternative to 75% and found a significant preference for the 50% reinforcement initial-link alternative. It may be that this "maladaptive" behavior results from a positive contrast between the expectation of reinforcement correlated with the 50% reinforcement initial-link alternative and the terminal-link stimulus correlated with 100% reinforcement. But apparently, the complementary negative contrast does not develop between the expectation of reinforcement correlated with the 50% reinforcement initial-link alternative and the terminal-link stimulus correlated with 0% reinforcement that often follow. Such paradoxical choice may account for certain human appetitive risk-taking behavior (e.g., gambling) as well.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19815925     DOI: 10.3758/LB.37.4.289

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  14 in total

1.  The role of observing responses in discrimination learning.

Authors:  L B WYCKOFF
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1952-11       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Inverse relations between preference and contrast.

Authors:  B A Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Preference for intermittent reinforcement.

Authors:  S B Kendall
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement.

Authors:  T W Belke; M L Spetch
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Contiguity and conditioned reinforcement in probabilistic choice.

Authors:  M McDevitt; M Spetch; R Dunn
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: contrast or delay reduction?

Authors:  Rebecca A Singer; Laura M Berry; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting-delay procedure.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal-link length.

Authors:  M L Spetch; T W Belke; R C Barnet; R Dunn; W D Pierce
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Reward magnitude in differential conditioning: effects of sequential variables in acquisition and extinction.

Authors:  R L Mellgren; D G Dyck
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1974-06

10.  Conditioned reinforcement and choice with delayed and uncertain primary reinforcers.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  23 in total

1.  Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not.

Authors:  Jennifer R Laude; Kristina F Pattison; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-10

2.  Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons.

Authors:  Jessica P Stagner; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-06

3.  Maladaptive choice behaviour by pigeons: an animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behaviour).

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Jessica Stagner
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Risky choice in pigeons: preference for amount variability using a token-reinforcement system.

Authors:  Carla H Lagorio; Timothy D Hackenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  The functional equivalence of two variants of the suboptimal choice task: choice proportion and response latency as measures of value.

Authors:  Alejandro Macías; Valeria V González; Armando Machado; Marco Vasconcelos
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-08-08       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 6.  Uncertainty processing in bees exposed to free choices: Lessons from vertebrates.

Authors:  Patrick Anselme
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

7.  Sub-Optimal Choice by Pigeons: Failure to Support The Allais Paradox.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Jessica P Stagner
Journal:  Learn Motiv       Date:  2011-08-01

8.  Environmental enrichment affects suboptimal, risky, gambling-like choice by pigeons.

Authors:  Kristina F Pattison; Jennifer R Laude; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 9.  Suboptimal choice by pigeons: an analog of human gambling behavior.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 1.777

10.  Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement.

Authors:  Jennifer R Laude; Jessica P Stagner; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.478

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.