Suboptimal choice by pigeons: An analog of human gambling behavior

Zentall, Thomas R.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.11.004

Cited by 31 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Altogether, the findings herein offer a model of suboptimal choice behavior, in rats, using a suboptimal choice procedure that has proven consistent across different species, including humans (Molet et al 2012; Zentall, 2014). More specifically, the findings herein demonstrate that the attribution of incentive salience to stimuli, in tandem with stimulus predictive utility, may play a critical role in maladaptive decision-making.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making

Chow

Smith

Wilson

et al. 2017

Behavioural Brain Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimuli that are more predictive of subsequent reward also function as better conditioned reinforcers. Moreover, stimuli attributed with incentive salience function as more robust conditioned reinforcers. Some theories have suggested that conditioned reinforcement plays an important role in promoting suboptimal choice behavior, like gambling. The present experiments examined how different stimuli, those attributed with incentive salience versus those without, can function in tandem with stimulus-reward predictive utility to promote maladaptive decision-making in rats. One group of rats had lights associated with goal-tracking as the reward-predictive stimuli and another had levers associated with sign-tracking as the reward-predictive stimuli. All rats were first trained on a choice procedure in which the expected value across both alternatives was equivalent but differed in their stimulus-reward predictive utility. Next, the expected value across both alternatives was systematically changed so that the alternative with greater stimulus-reward predictive utility was suboptimal in regard to primary reinforcement. The results demonstrate that in order to obtain suboptimal choice behavior, incentive salience alongside strong stimulus-reward predictive utility may be necessary; thus, maladaptive decision-making can be driven more by the value attributed to stimuli imbued with incentive salience that reliably predict a reward rather than the reward itself.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making

Chow

Smith

Wilson

et al. 2017

Behavioural Brain Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Choice that is progressively more exclusive towards one alternative may lead to greater overall loss over time (Herrnstein & Prelec, 1991;Heyman, 2013). That is, choice can become 'suboptimal' (Spetch, Belke, Barnet, Dunn & Pierce, 1990;Zentall, 2014). Suboptimal choice appears to be driven partially by a preference for locally richer alternatives, and partially by the availability of discriminative stimuli signaling reinforcement contingencies (Chow, Smith, Wilson, Zentall & Beckmann 2017;Zentall & Laude, 2013;Zentall & Stagner, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a negative discriminative stimulus function as a punishing consequence?

Bland

Cowie

Elliffe

et al. 2018

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study and use of punishment in behavioral treatments has been constrained by ethical concerns. However, there remains a need to reduce harmful behavior unable to be reduced by differential-reinforcement procedures. We investigated whether response-contingent presentation of a negative discriminative stimulus previously correlated with an absence of reinforcers would punish behavior maintained by positive reinforcers. Across four conditions, pigeons were trained to discriminate between a positive discriminative stimulus (S+) signaling the presence of food, and a negative discriminative stimulus (S-) signaling the absence of food. Once learned, every five responses on average to the S+ produced S- for a duration of 1.5 s. S+ response rate decreased for a majority of pigeons when responses produced S-, compared to when they did not, or when a neutral control stimulus was presented. In Condition 5, choice between two concurrently presented S+ alternatives shifted away from the alternative producing S-, despite a 1:1 reinforcer ratio. Therefore, presenting contingent S- stimuli punishes operant behavior maintained on simple schedules and in choice situations. Development of negative discriminative stimuli as punishers of operant behavior could provide an effective approach to behavioral treatments for problem behavior and subverting suboptimal choices involved in addictions.

show abstract

“…Suboptimal decision-making in pigeons has been presented as an analogue of human pathological gambling (see Zentall, 2014 for a comprehensive review). The utility of this analogue rests on the identification of causal factors in pigeon choice that could plausibly underpin similarly maladaptive human behaviour.…”

Section: Translational Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%