Literature DB >> 25772336

The Monty Hall dilemma with pigeons: No, you choose for me.

Thomas R Zentall1, Jacob P Case, Tiffany L Collins.   

Abstract

In the Monty Hall dilemma, humans are initially given a choice among three alternatives, one of which has a hidden prize. After they have chosen, but before revealing whether they have won the prize, subjects are shown that one of the remaining alternatives does not have the prize, and they are asked whether they want to stay with their original choice or switch to the remaining alternative. Switching results in obtaining the prize two thirds of the time, but even after considerable training, humans fail to consistently adopt the optimal strategy of switching. Pigeons, however, show closer-to-optimal switching performance with this task. One of the reasons that humans choose suboptimally is their mistaken assumption that with two alternatives, the probabilities of winning the prize are the same for staying and switching, and staying may be preferred because of a sense of endowment (ownership of the initial response). When we tried to produce an endowment effect in pigeons by requiring 20 pecks (rather than one peck) for the initial choice, it actually resulted in faster acquisition of the switching response. In the present research with pigeons, we examined the finding from human research that subjects are more likely to switch if they are not responsible for making the initial choice (another approach to the endowment effect). Inconsistent with the findings with humans, we found that when the initial choice was made for the pigeons, they actually showed less of a tendency to switch than did pigeons that made the initial choice themselves.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25772336     DOI: 10.3758/s13420-015-0172-3

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


  15 in total

1.  Memory mechanisms in pigeons: evidence of base-rate neglect.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Tricia S Clement
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2002-01

2.  Probability matching: encouraging optimal responding in humans.

Authors:  Edmund Fantino; Ali Esfandiari
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2002-03

3.  Probability matching and strategy availability.

Authors:  Derek J Koehler; Greta James
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-09

4.  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

5.  Matching-to-sample by pigeons: the dissociation of comparison choice frequency from the probability of reinforcement.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Rebecca A Singer; Holly C Miller
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 1.777

6.  The comparative analysis of learning.

Authors:  M E Bitterman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1975-05-16       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Sunk cost: pigeons (Columba livia), too, show bias to complete a task rather than shift to another.

Authors:  Kristina F Pattison; Thomas R Zentall; Shigeru Watanabe
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2011-05-16       Impact factor: 2.231

8.  Teaching pigeons to commit base-rate neglect.

Authors:  Edmund Fantino; Inna Glaz Kanevsky; Shawn R Charlton
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-10

9.  Endowment effects in chimpanzees.

Authors:  Sarah F Brosnan; Owen D Jones; Susan P Lambeth; Mary Catherine Mareno; Amanda S Richardson; Steven J Schapiro
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Endowment effect in capuchin monkeys.

Authors:  Venkat Lakshminaryanan; M Keith Chen; Laurie R Santos
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2008-12-12       Impact factor: 6.237

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.