Literature DB >> 21215301

Maladaptive "gambling" by pigeons.

Thomas R Zentall1.   

Abstract

When humans buy a lottery ticket or gamble at a casino they are engaging in an activity that on average leads to a loss of money. Although animals are purported to engage in optimal foraging behavior, similar sub-optimal behavior can be found in pigeons. They show a preference for an alternative that is associated with a low probability of reinforcement (e.g., one that is followed by a red hue on 20% of the trials and then reinforcement or by a green hue on 80% of the trials and then the absence of reinforcement) over an alternative that is associated with a higher probability of reinforcement (e.g., blue or yellow each of which is followed by reinforcement 50% of the time). This effect appears to result from the strong conditioned reinforcement associated with the stimulus that is always followed by reinforcement. Surprisingly, although it is experienced four times as much, the stimulus that is never followed by reinforcement does not appear to result in significant conditioned inhibition (perhaps due to the absence of observing behavior). Similarly, human gamblers tend to overvalue wins and undervalue losses. Thus, this animal model may provide a useful analog to human gambling behavior, one that is free from the influence of human culture, language, social reinforcement, and other experiential biases that may influence human gambling behavior.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21215301      PMCID: PMC3432481          DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.12.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  19 in total

1.  Risk as feelings.

Authors:  G F Loewenstein; E U Weber; C K Hsee; N Welch
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

Authors:  Paul Slovic; Melissa L Finucane; Ellen Peters; Donald G MacGregor
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons.

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

4.  Think different: the merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making.

Authors:  Ap Dijksterhuis
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2004-11

5.  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

6.  Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment.

Authors:  Joshua D Greene; Sylvia A Morelli; Kelly Lowenberg; Leigh E Nystrom; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-12-26

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

Authors:  Cassandra D Gipson; Jérôme J D Alessandri; Holly C Miller; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.986

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.  Serotonergic and dopaminergic modulation of gambling behavior as assessed using a novel rat gambling task.

Authors:  Fiona D Zeeb; Trevor W Robbins; Catharine A Winstanley
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 7.853

10.  Risk-prone individuals prefer the wrong options on a rat version of the Iowa Gambling Task.

Authors:  Marion Rivalan; Serge H Ahmed; Françoise Dellu-Hagedorn
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2009-05-31       Impact factor: 13.382

View more
  11 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Reinforcement learning models of risky choice and the promotion of risk-taking by losses disguised as wins in rats.

Authors:  Andrew T Marshall; Kimberly Kirkpatrick
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.478

4.  Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

Authors:  Mikael Molet; Holly C Miller; Jennifer R Laude; Chelsea Kirk; Brandon Manning; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.986

5.  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

6.  Mice infer probabilistic models for timing.

Authors:  Yi Li; Joshua Tate Dudman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Irrational choice and the value of information.

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Tiago Monteiro; Alex Kacelnik
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Testing the limits of optimality: the effect of base rates in the Monty Hall dilemma.

Authors:  Walter T Herbranson; Shanglun Wang
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.926

9.  Individual differences in gambling proneness among rats and common marmosets: an automated choice task.

Authors:  Francesca Zoratto; Emma Sinclair; Arianna Manciocco; Augusto Vitale; Giovanni Laviola; Walter Adriani
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Suboptimal Choice in Pigeons: Stimulus Value Predicts Choice over Frequencies.

Authors:  Aaron P Smith; Alexandria R Bailey; Jonathan J Chow; Joshua S Beckmann; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.