Good news is better than bad news, but bad news is not worse than no news.

Under certain conditions, pigeons will reliably prefer an alternative that leads to a lower probability of food over an alternative that leads to a higher probability of food (i.e., demonstrate suboptimal choice). A critical aspect of the typical procedure is that the alternative associated with less food provides differential stimuli that signal trial outcomes, but the alternative associated with more food does not. Few studies have investigated how partial signaling of an alternative influences preference. In Experiments 1-3, pigeons chose between two alternatives that each led to food 60% of the time with partially signaled trial outcomes. One alternative occasionally provided a stimulus that always preceded food (i.e., "good news") and the other alternative occasionally provided a stimulus that always preceded no food ("bad news"). Experiments 2 and 3 also assessed preference in conditions in which alternatives were either completely unsignaled (provided no differential stimuli) or always led to food. Pigeons consistently preferred the "good news" alternative over the "bad news" alternative and preferred 100% food over the "bad news" alternative. The results from conditions in which pigeons chose between the "bad news" alternative and an unsignaled alternative were inconclusive, but suggestive of a preference for bad news. The results are used to evaluate and distinguish between competing explanations of suboptimal choice.