Literature DB >> 22328280

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

Mikael Molet1, Holly C Miller, Jennifer R Laude, Chelsea Kirk, Brandon Manning, Thomas R Zentall.   

Abstract

Consistent with human gambling behavior but contrary to optimal foraging theory, pigeons show a strong preference for an alternative with low probability and high payoff (a gambling-like alternative) over an alternative with a greater net payoff (Zentall & Stagner, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 1203-1208, 2011). In the present research, we asked whether humans would show suboptimal choice on a task involving choices with probabilities similar to those for pigeons. In Experiment 1, when we selected participants on the basis of their self-reported gambling activities, we found a significantly greater choice of the alternative involving low probability and high payoff (gambling-like alternative) than for a group that reported an absence of gambling activity. In Experiment 2, we found that when the inhibiting abilities of typical humans were impaired by a self-regulatory depletion manipulation, they were more likely to choose the gambling-like alternative. Taken together, the results suggest that this task is suitable for the comparative study of suboptimal decision-making behavior and the mechanisms that underlie it.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22328280     DOI: 10.3758/s13420-012-0065-7

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


  21 in total

1.  Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).

Authors:  C W Lejuez; Jennifer P Read; Christopher W Kahler; Jerry B Richards; Susan E Ramsey; Gregory L Stuart; David R Strong; Richard A Brown
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2002-06

2.  Intellectual performance and ego depletion: role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing.

Authors:  Brandon J Schmeichel; Kathleen D Vohs; Roy F Baumeister
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2003-07

Review 3.  Pathological gambling. A comprehensive review.

Authors:  Namrata Raylu; Tian P S Oei
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2002-09

4.  Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons.

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

5.  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

6.  Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards III: steady-state assessments, forced-choice trials, and all real rewards.

Authors:  Carla H Lagorio; Gregory J Madden
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2005-05-31       Impact factor: 1.777

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.  Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource?

Authors:  R F Baumeister; E Bratslavsky; M Muraven; D M Tice
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1998-05

9.  The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.

Authors:  H R Lesieur; S B Blume
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 18.112

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
  14 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.  Human and pigeon suboptimal choice.

Authors:  Margaret A McDevitt; James W Diller; Malvina O Pietrzykowski
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Gambling in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta): The effect of cues signaling risky choice outcomes.

Authors:  Travis R Smith; Michael J Beran; Michael E Young
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  Initial uncertainty in Pavlovian reward prediction persistently elevates incentive salience and extends sign-tracking to normally unattractive cues.

Authors:  Mike J F Robinson; Patrick Anselme; Adam M Fischer; Kent C Berridge
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  How suboptimal is suboptimal choice?

Authors:  Jay E Hinnenkamp; Timothy A Shahan; Gregory J Madden
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Too dog tired to avoid danger: self-control depletion in canines increases behavioral approach toward an aggressive threat.

Authors:  Holly C Miller; C Nathan DeWall; Kristina Pattison; Mikaël Molet; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-06

7.  Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making.

Authors:  Jonathan J Chow; Aaron P Smith; A George Wilson; Thomas R Zentall; Joshua S Beckmann
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 8.  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

9.  The role of 'jackpot' stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists.

Authors:  Aaron P Smith; Rebecca S Hofford; Thomas R Zentall; Joshua S Beckmann
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2018-02-18       Impact factor: 4.530

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.