Rewards, Preferences, and Learning Sets

Riopelle, Arthur J.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1955.1.h.167

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, where rewarded and nonrewarded Trial 1 occurred equally often, there was a consistently superior performance following nonreward and this difference was constant throughout the experiment. This consistent superiority under the nonreward condition is in accord with previous findings (Blomquist, 1957;Harlow & Hicks, 1957;Moss & Harlow, 1947;Riopelle, 1955;Riopelle & Francisco, 1955;Riopelle et al, 1954) and with the response-shift interpretation (Harlow, 1950).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Riopelle and co-workers (Riopelle, 1955;Riopelle & Francisco, 1955;Riopelle, Francisco, & Ades, 1954) presented groups of rhesus monkeys with six-trial discrimination problems with no incentive on Trial 1 (an empty foodwell) or with a marble, food, or both food and marble. They found that food reward on Trial 1 resulted in a subsequently lower performance than did no food or the marble.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of ratio of trial 1 reward to nonreward on the discrimination learning of macaque monkeys.

King¹,

Harlow²

1962

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of ratio of trial 1 reward to nonreward on the discrimination learning of macaque monkeys.

King¹,

Harlow²

1962

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They reached opposite conclusions but agreed that the first outcome affects subsequent learning. Studies focused on individual learning demonstrated that humans, monkeys, cats, and pigeons learn best from (their own) successes (Riopelle et al, 1954; Riopelle, 1955, 1960; Warren, 1959; Mishkin, 1964; Itoh et al, 2001; van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2008; Cook and Fagot, 2009). Studies focused on social learning showed that macaques and birds learn best from (others’) errors (Darby and Riopelle, 1959; Templeton, 1998; see also Vanayan et al, 1985; Biederman and Vanayan, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Faced with two equally neutral objects, one leading to a reward, the other not, individuals from several species (rhesus monkeys: Riopelle et al, 1954; Riopelle, 1955, 1960; Itoh et al, 2001; cats: Warren, 1959; humans: van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2008; baboons and pigeons: Cook and Fagot, 2009) are far less likely to learn if they happen to select the negative object during their initial choice than when they initially pick the positive object. When the initial choice proves incorrect, choice-induced attraction for the negative item considerably slows subsequent learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Learning as a Way to Overcome Choice-Induced Preferences? Insights from Humans and Rhesus Macaques

Monfardini¹,

Gaveau²,

Boussaoud³

et al. 2012

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much theoretical attention is currently devoted to social learning. Yet, empirical studies formally comparing its effectiveness relative to individual learning are rare. Here, we focus on free choice, which is at the heart of individual reward-based learning, but absent in social learning. Choosing among two equally valued options is known to create a preference for the selected option in both humans and monkeys. We thus surmised that social learning should be more helpful when choice-induced preferences retard individual learning than when they optimize it. To test this prediction, the same task requiring to find which among two items concealed a reward was applied to rhesus macaques and humans. The initial trial was individual or social, rewarded or unrewarded. Learning was assessed on the second trial. Choice-induced preference strongly affected individual learning. Monkeys and humans performed much more poorly after an initial negative choice than after an initial positive choice. Comparison with social learning verified our prediction. For negative outcome, social learning surpassed or at least equaled individual learning in all subjects. For positive outcome, the predicted superiority of individual learning did occur in a majority of subjects (5/6 monkeys and 6/12 humans). A minority kept learning better socially though, perhaps due to a more dominant/aggressive attitude toward peers. Poor learning from errors due to over-valuation of personal choices is among the decision-making biases shared by humans and animals. The present study suggests that choice-immune social learning may help curbing this potentially harmful tendency. Learning from successes is an easier path. The present data suggest that whether one tends to walk it alone or with a peer’s help might depend on the social dynamics within the actor/observer dyad.

show abstract

“…The importance of rewards as cues has been demonstrated in a series of papers by Riopelle and his associates (14,17,18), who have shown that highly efficient performance can be maintained even when no reward is given on the first trial-so long as some informational cue, such as a marble, is used to indicate which object will be reinforced. In the present terminology, they have shown that type-a cues, which are usually contingent on previous rewards, can as well be contingent on other things, such as marbles, which have the same place in the procedure as rewards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%