Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not

Laude, Jennifer R.; Pattison, Kristina F.; Zentall, Thomas R.

doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0282-2

Cited by 41 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is some evidence that the real or symbolic nature of the rewards can affect decision making (e.g., Lagorio & Madden, 2005). In fact, we recently found that when pigeons performed the pigeon version of this task under lower conditions of motivation (less food deprived), they showed less of a tendency to make suboptimal choices than did more highly motivated pigeons (Laude, Pattison, & Zentall, 2011) with a result similar to that shown by our self-reported gamblers and depleted participants.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consistent with human gambling behavior but contrary to optimal foraging theory, pigeons show a strong preference for an alternative with low probability and high payoff (a gambling-like alternative) over an alternative with a greater net payoff (Zentall & Stagner, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 1203Society B, 278, -1208Society B, 278, , 2011. In the present research, we asked whether humans would show suboptimal choice on a task involving choices with probabilities similar to those for pigeons. In Experiment 1, when we selected participants on the basis of their self-reported gambling activities, we found a significantly greater choice of the alternative involving low probability and high payoff (gambling-like alternative) than for a group that reported an absence of gambling activity. In Experiment 2, we found that when the inhibiting abilities of typical humans were impaired by a self-regulatory depletion manipulation, they were more likely to choose the gambling-like alternative. Taken together, the results suggest that this task is suitable for the comparative study of suboptimal decision-making behavior and the mechanisms that underlie it.Keywords decision making . suboptimal choice . gambling . humans . pigeons A subset of suboptimal decision making can be characterized as making a decision to choose a low-probability but high-payoff alternative (e.g., playing slot machines or buying lottery tickets) over a high-probability, low-payoff alternative (not gambling), such that the net expected return is less than what one has wagered. In this kind of gambling, over the long term, one is very likely to lose more than one wins, and having sufficient experience with the game to learn about the odds of winning does not appear to reduce its frequency. It appears that gamblers tend to over-attend to wins and discount losses (the availability heuristic; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).Recently, Zentall and colleagues studied suboptimal decision-making processes in pigeons (Gipson, Alessandri, Miller, & Zentall, 2009;Stagner & Zentall, 2010;Zentall & Stagner, 2011). They asked whether pigeons would show choice behavior analogous to the suboptimal behavior shown by humans when humans purchase a lottery ticket or engage in casino gambling. To answer this question, Zentall and Stagner designed a task that may be considered analogous to human gambling (see Fig. 1a). In this task, pigeons are given a choice between one alternative reliably associated with three reinforcers (analogous to money in one's pocket) and a second alternative (analogous to gambling) associated with a low-probability, high-payoff stimulus on some trials (10 pellets on 20% of the trials) or a highprobability, zero-payoff stimulus on others. In one sense, the task is analogous to suboptimal human gambling, because the average payoff for the first alternative (with an overall mean reinforcement per trial of 3 pellets) is greater than that of the second alternative (with an overall mean reinforcement per trial of 2 pellets). Results show...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If our pigeon model of suboptimal choice is a reasonably good analog of human gambling behavior, the level of pigeons’ food motivation should predict their degree of suboptimal choice. Laude, Pattison, and Zentall (2012) tested this hypothesis and found support for the relationship. They found that pigeons that were minimally food restricted chose optimally, whereas those that were normally food restricted showed the typical suboptimal choice.…”

Section: The Demographics Of Gambling Behaviormentioning

confidence: 98%

Suboptimal choice by pigeons: An analog of human gambling behavior

Zentall

2014

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…If the pigeon model of suboptimal choice is an analog of human gambling, then one might expect the level of pigeons' food motivation be associated with their degree of suboptimal choice. Laude et al (2012) found support for the relationship. They found that pigeons that were normally food restricted showed the typical suboptimal choice, whereas those that were minimally food restricted tended to choose optimally.…”

Section: The Relation Between Level Of Food Restriction and Suboptimamentioning

confidence: 75%

An Animal Model of Human Gambling

Zentall

2016

Int. j. psychol. res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article history: Received: 18-03-2016 Revised: 23-05-2016 Accepted: 26-05-2016 Key words: gambling, animal model, reinforcement and risk taking.Human gambling generally involves taking a risk on a low probability high outcome alternative over the more economically optimal high probability low outcome alternative (not gambling). Surprisingly, although optimal foraging theory suggests that animals should be sensitive to the overall probability of reinforcement, the results of many experiments suggest otherwise. For example, they do not prefer an alternative that 100% of the time provides them with a stimulus that always predicts reinforcement over an alternative that provides them with a stimulus that predicts reinforcement 50% of the time. This line of research leads to the conclusion that preference depends on the predictive value of the stimulus that follows and surprisingly, not on its frequency. A similar mechanism likely accounts for the suboptimal choice that humans have to engage in commercial gambling. RESUMENPalabras clave: juegos de azar, modelo animal, reforzamiento y toma de riesgo.En los humanos, los juegos de azar generalmente implican la toma de riesgo en alternativas de baja probabilidad y buenos resultados, sobre alternativas más probables y de resultados bajos pero económicamente óptimos (no apostar). Lo sorprendente es, que aunque la teoría de forrajeo optimo sugiere que los animales deberían ser sensibles a una probabilidad general de reforzamiento, los resultados de muchos experimentos sugieren lo contrario. Por ejemplo, los animales no prefieren una alternativa que en un 100% de las veces provea un estímulo que siempre prediga el reforzamiento por encima de una alternativa que provea un estímulo que prediga el reforzamiento en un 50% de las veces. Esta línea de investigación lleva a la conclusión de que las preferencias dependen del valor predictivo de los estímulos que los preceden, y no de su frecuencia como era de esperarse. Un mecanismo similar probablemente explicaría la elección subóptima que los humanos realizan en los juegos de azar comerciales.R e v i e w

show abstract

Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not

Cited by 41 publications

References 29 publications

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

Suboptimal choice by pigeons: An analog of human gambling behavior

An Animal Model of Human Gambling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About