Literature DB >> 24291801

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

Thomas R Zentall1.   

Abstract

Human gambling often involves the choice of a low probability but high valued outcome over a high probability (certain) low valued outcome (not gambling) that is economically more optimal. We have developed an analog of gambling in which pigeons prefer a suboptimal alternative that infrequently provides a signal for a high probability (or high magnitude) of reinforcement over an optimal alternative that always provides a signal for a lower probability (or lower magnitude) of reinforcement. We have identified two mechanisms that may be responsible for this suboptimal behavior. First, the effect of nonreinforcement results in considerably less inhibition of choice than ideally it should. Second, the frequency of the occurrence of the signal for a high probability or high magnitude of reinforcement is less important than ideally it should. Also analogous to human gambling is the finding that pigeons that are normally food restricted choose suboptimally, whereas those that are minimally food restricted choose optimally. In addition, pigeons that are singly housed choose suboptimally, whereas those that are exposed to a more enriched environment choose less suboptimally. We believe that these findings have implications for the understanding and treatment of problem gambling behavior.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conditioned inhibition; Conditioned reinforcer; Gambling; Pigeons; Suboptimal choice

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24291801      PMCID: PMC4323186          DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.11.004

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


  38 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Increased sensitivity to amphetamine and reward-related stimuli following social isolation in rats: possible disruption of dopamine-dependent mechanisms of the nucleus accumbens.

Authors:  G H Jones; C A Marsden; T W Robbins
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior.

Authors:  Edmund Fantino; Alan Silberberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  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

6.  Perceptual accuracy and conflicting effects of certainty on risk-taking behaviour.

Authors:  Sharoni Shafir; Taly Reich; Erez Tsur; Ido Erev; Arnon Lotem
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  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

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

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

Review 9.  Review. The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: an overview and new findings.

Authors:  Marc N Potenza
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2008-10-12       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  Impulsivity and cognitive distortions in pathological gamblers attending the UK National Problem Gambling Clinic: a preliminary report.

Authors:  R Michalczuk; H Bowden-Jones; A Verdejo-Garcia; L Clark
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 7.723

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans.

Authors:  Justin C Strickland; Joshua A Lile; William W Stoops
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 4.492

4.  Contribution of alcohol- and cigarette-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans.

Authors:  Justin C Strickland; Cecilia L Bergeria
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 1.777

5.  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

6.  Contribution of cocaine-related cues to concurrent monetary choice in humans.

Authors:  Justin C Strickland; Katherine R Marks; Joshua S Beckmann; Joshua A Lile; Craig R Rush; William W Stoops
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 4.530

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.