Literature DB >> 26881902

Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Choice is primarily based on the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than overall reinforcement rate.

Aaron P Smith1, Thomas R Zentall1.   

Abstract

Pigeons have sometimes shown a preference for a signaled 50% reinforcement alternative (leading half of the time to a stimulus that signaled 100% reinforcement and otherwise to a stimulus that signaled 0% reinforcement) over a 100% reinforcement alternative. We hypothesized that pigeons may actually be indifferent between the 2 alternatives with previous inconsistent preferences resulting in part from an artifact of the use of a spatial discrimination. In the present experiments, we tested the hypothesis that pigeons would be indifferent between alternatives that provide conditioned reinforcers of equal value. In Experiment 1, we used the signaled 50% reinforcement versus 100% reinforcement procedure, but cued the alternatives with shapes that varied in their spatial location from trial to trial. Consistent with the stimulus value hypothesis, the pigeons showed indifference between the alternatives. In Experiment 2, to confirm that the pigeons could discriminate between the shapes, we removed the discriminative function from the 50% reinforcement alternative and found a clear preference for the 100% reinforcement alternative. Finally, in Experiment 3, when we returned the discriminative function to the 50% reinforcement alternative and reduced the 100% reinforcement alternative to 50% reinforcement, we found a clear preference for the discriminative stimulus alternative. These results support the hypothesis that pigeons prefer the alternative with the conditioned reinforcer that best predicts reinforcement, whereas its frequency may be relatively unimportant. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26881902     DOI: 10.1037/xan0000092

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn        ISSN: 2329-8456            Impact factor:   2.478


  9 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Uncertainty processing in bees exposed to free choices: Lessons from vertebrates.

Authors:  Patrick Anselme
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

3.  Enhancing "self-control": The paradoxical effect of delay of reinforcement.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Gambling-like behavior in pigeons: 'jackpot' signals promote maladaptive risky choice.

Authors:  Aaron P Smith; Joshua S Beckmann; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Revisited: Pigeons Have Much Cognitive Behavior in Common With Humans.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-01-21

8.  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

9.  Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project.

Authors:  Julia M Rohrer; Warren Tierney; Eric L Uhlmann; Lisa M DeBruine; Tom Heyman; Benedict Jones; Stefan C Schmukle; Raphael Silberzahn; Rebecca M Willén; Rickard Carlsson; Richard E Lucas; Julia Strand; Simine Vazire; Jessica K Witt; Thomas R Zentall; Christopher F Chabris; Tal Yarkoni
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-03-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.