Literature DB >> 22733219

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

Jennifer R Laude1, Kristina F Pattison, Thomas R Zentall.   

Abstract

Hungry animals will often choose suboptimally by being attracted to reliable signals for food that occur infrequently (they gamble) over less reliable signals for food that occur more often. That is, pigeons prefer an option that 50 % of the time provides them with a reliable signal for the appearance of food but 50 % of the time provides them with a reliable signal for the absence of food (overall 50 % reinforcement) over an alternative that always provides them with a signal for the appearance of food 75 % of the time (overall 75 % reinforcement). The pigeons appear to choose impulsively for the possibility of obtaining the reliable signal for reinforcement. There is evidence that greater hunger is associated with greater impulsivity. We tested the hypothesis that if the pigeons were less hungry, they would be less impulsive and, thus, would choose more optimally (i.e., on the basis of the overall probability of reinforcement). We found that hungry pigeons choose the 50 % reinforcement alternative suboptimally but less hungry pigeons prefer the more optimal 75 % reinforcement. Paradoxically, pigeons that needed the food more received less of it. These findings have implications for how level of motivation may also affect human suboptimal choice (e.g., purchase of lottery tickets and playing slot machines).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22733219     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0282-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  19 in total

1.  Choice between delayed reinforcers in a discrete-trials schedule: the effect of deprivation level.

Authors:  C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol B       Date:  1992-01

2.  Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons.

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

3.  Subjective probability and delay.

Authors:  H Rachlin; A Raineri; D Cross
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1991-03       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.  A PROOF OF THE LAW OF EFFECT.

Authors:  E L Thorndike
Journal:  Science       Date:  1933-02-10       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  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

7.  The effect of food deprivation on self-control.

Authors:  A W Logue; T E Peña-Correal
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 1.777

8.  Time horizons of foraging animals.

Authors:  J R Krebs; A Kacelnik
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 5.691

9.  New evidence from the grey area: Danish results for at-risk gambling.

Authors:  Stéphanie Vincent Lyk-Jensen
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2010-09

10.  Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure.

Authors:  S M. Alessi; N M. Petry
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2003-10-31       Impact factor: 1.777

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  Less means more for pigeons but not always.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Jennifer R Laude; Jacob P Case; Carter W Daniels
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-12

6.  Risk-Based Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Animal Models and a Pilot Study on the Effects of Sleep Deprivation in Rats.

Authors:  Cathalijn H C Leenaars; Stevie Van der Mierden; Ruud N J M A Joosten; Marnix A Van der Weide; Mischa Schirris; Maurice Dematteis; Franck L B Meijboom; Matthijs G P Feenstra; André Bleich
Journal:  Clocks Sleep       Date:  2021-01-20

7.  The Hunger Games: Homeostatic State-Dependent Fluctuations in Disinhibition Measured with a Novel Gamified Test Battery.

Authors:  Katharina Voigt; Emily Giddens; Romana Stark; Emma Frisch; Neda Moskovsky; Naomi Kakoschke; Julie C Stout; Mark A Bellgrove; Zane B Andrews; Antonio Verdejo-Garcia
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 5.717

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.