Influence of budget and reinforcement location on risk-sensitive preference

O'Daly, Matthew; Case, David A.; Fantino, Edmund

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2006.04.005

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With choices between fixed and variable delays to reinforcement, nonhumans are strongly risk prone, preferring the variable delay (see Mazur, 2004, for a review). This robust sensitivity to reinforcer delay has been found across a broad range of species (insects, fish, birds, and mammals; Kacelnik & Bateson, 1996), and reinforcer types (e.g., water, food; Bateson & Kacelnik, 1995, 1997; Case, Nichols, & Fantino, 1995; Cicerone, 1976; Davison, 1969, 1972; Fantino, 1967; Frankel & vom Saal, 1976; Gibbon, Church, Fairhurst, & Kacelnik, 1988; Herrnstein, 1964; Hursh & Fantino, 1973; Kendall, 1989; Killeen, 1968; Logan, 1965; Mazur, 1984; Navarick & Fantino, 1975; O'Daly, Case, & Fantino, 2006; Orduna & Bouzas, 2004; Rider, 1983; Sherman & Thomas, 1968; Zabludoff, Wecker, & Caraco, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Risky Choice in Pigeons and Humans: A Cross‐species Comparison

Lagorio

Hackenberg

2010

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeon and human subjects were given repeated choices between variable and adjusting delays to token reinforcement that titrated in relation to a subject's recent choice patterns. Indifference curves were generated under two different procedures: immediate exchange, in which a token earned during each trial was exchanged immediately for access to the terminal reinforcer (food for pigeons, video clips for humans), and delayed exchange, in which tokens accumulated and were exchanged after 11 trials. The former was designed as an analogue of procedures typically used with nonhuman subjects, the latter as an analogue to procedures typically used with human participants. Under both procedure types, different variable-delay schedules were manipulated systematically across conditions in ways that altered the reinforcer immediacy of the risky option. Under immediate-exchange conditions, both humans and pigeons consistently preferred the variable delay, and indifference points were generally ordered in relation to relative reinforcer immediacies. Such risk sensitivity was greatly reduced under delayed-exchange conditions. Choice and trial-initiation response latencies varied directly with indifference points, suggesting that local analyses may provide useful ancillary measures of reinforcer value. On the whole, the results indicate that modifying procedural features brings choices of pigeons and humans into better accord, and that human-nonhuman differences on risky choice procedures reported in the literature may be at least partly a product of procedural differences.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Risky Choice in Pigeons and Humans: A Cross‐species Comparison

Lagorio

Hackenberg

2010

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pattern of results across studies suggests that using separate locations of reinforcement, one for the fixed alternative and the other for the variable alternative, leads to finding risk aversion; alternatively, if the findings from studies using a single source of reinforcement for both alternatives were averaged, the result is close to indifference. The effect of feeder location on risky choice was assessed directly in O'Daly, Fantino and Case (2001) by presenting pigeons with a choice between a fixed and variable number Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 19:11 02 November 2014 of dipper presentations, whereby in one condition, reinforcement for the fixed and variable alternatives was delivered to separate locations and in another condition, reinforcement was delivered to a single location. Significantly greater risk aversion occurred when reinforcement was delivered to separate locations than when delivered to a single location.…”

Section: Choosing Between Certain and Variable Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Science of Decision-making: Behaviours Related to Gambling

Fantino

Navarro

O'Daly

2005

International Gambling Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behaviour analysis of decision-making has studied three realms of behaviour that play a role in gambling: risk taking, behavioural persistence and self-control. Research from our laboratory and others suggests that in all three areas, the manner in which choices are presented to subjects is of central importance. The paper argues that a behavioural perspective may be useful in understanding the factors controlling gambling and compares this perspective with one based on a cognitive orientation.

show abstract