Literature DB >> 35378670

Forced-exposure trials increase suboptimal choice.

Margaret A McDevitt1, Jeffrey M Pisklak2, Roger M Dunn3, Marcia L Spetch2.   

Abstract

The influence of single option or forced-exposure (FE) trials was studied in the suboptimal choice task. Pigeons chose between an optimal alternative that led to food half of the time and a suboptimal alternative that led to food 20% of the time. Choice of the suboptimal alternative was compared across groups of subjects that received different numbers of FE trials during training. In Experiment 1, subjects received 100% FE trials, 67% FE trials, or only choice trials. Pigeons in the two groups that had FE trials developed extreme preference for the signaled suboptimal alternative over the unsignaled optimal alternative, while pigeons that had no FE trials showed pronounced individual differences. Experiment 2 compared 10% and 90% FE trials. When neither alternative signaled trial outcomes, both groups of subjects strongly preferred the optimal alternative. When the suboptimal alternative provided differential signals, the subjects in the 90% FE group developed strong preference for the suboptimal alternative and subjects in the 10% FE group maintained preference for the optimal alternative. The results of both experiments demonstrate that FE trials can have substantial effects on the development of preference in the suboptimal choice task.
© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conditioned reinforcement; Forced choice, Forced-exposure trials; Keypeck; Pigeon; Suboptimal choice

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35378670     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02092-2

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


  12 in total

1.  Preference for intermittent reinforcement.

Authors:  S B Kendall
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Choice and rate of reinforcement.

Authors:  E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  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

4.  Preference for multiple versus mixed schedules of reinforcement.

Authors:  B Alsop; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Does the predictive value of the conditioned reinforcer alone determine choice?

Authors:  Jacob P Case; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 1.777

6.  Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects.

Authors:  R Dunn; M L Spetch
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  The Δ-∑ hypothesis: How contrast and reinforcement rate combine to generate suboptimal choice.

Authors:  Valeria V González; Alejandro Macías; Armando Machado; Marco Vasconcelos
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Behavioral ephemera, difficult discriminations, and behavioral stability.

Authors:  William M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Midbrain dopamine neurons signal preference for advance information about upcoming rewards.

Authors:  Ethan S Bromberg-Martin; Okihide Hikosaka
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 17.173

10.  Paradoxical choice in rats: Subjective valuation and mechanism of choice.

Authors:  Andrés Ojeda; Robin A Murphy; Alex Kacelnik
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 1.777

View more
  1 in total

1.  Commentary on Slocum et al. (2022): Additional Considerations for Evaluating Experimental Control.

Authors:  Sean W Smith; Faris R Kronfli; Timothy R Vollmer
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2022-07-21
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.