Abstract
Contrary to the law of effect and optimal foraging theory, pigeons show suboptimal choice behavior by choosing an alternative that provides 20% reinforcement over another that provides 50% reinforcement. They choose the 20% reinforcement alternative—in which 20% of the time, that choice results in a stimulus that always predicts reinforcement, and 80% of the time, it results in another stimulus that predicts its absence—rather than the 50% reinforcement alternative, which results in one of two stimuli, each of which predicts reinforcement 50% of the time. This choice behavior may be related to suboptimal human monetary gambling behavior, because in both cases, the organism overemphasizes the infrequent occurrence of the winning event and underemphasizes the more frequent occurrence of the losing event.
Article PDF
References
Belke, T. W., & Spetch, M. L. (1994). Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 353–366.
Dinsmoor, J. A. (1983). Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 6, 693–728.
Fantino, E., Dunn, R., & Meck, W. (1979). Percentage reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 335–340.
Gipson, C. D., Alessandri, J. J. D., Miller, H. C., & Zentall, T. R. (2009). Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 37, 289–298.
Jenkins, H. M., Barnes, R. A., & Barrera, F. J. (1981). Why auto-shaping depends on trial spacing. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 255–284). New York: Academic Press.
Mazur, J. E. (1996). Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting delay procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 63–73.
Roper, K. L., & Zentall, T. R. (1999). Observing behavior in pigeons: The effect of reinforcement probability and response cost using a symmetrical choice procedure. Learning & Motivation, 30, 201–220.
Spetch, M. L., Belke, T. W., Barnet, R. C., Dunn, R., & Pierce, W. D. (1990). Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: Effects of signal condition and terminal link length. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 219–234.
Spetch, M. L., Mondloch, M. V., Belke, T. W., & Dunn, R. (1994). Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22, 239–251.
Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wyckoff, L. B., Jr. (1952). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning: Part I. Psychological Review, 59, 431–442.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 63726 and by National Institute of Child Health and Development Grant 60996.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stagner, J.P., Zentall, T.R. Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 412–416 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.3.412
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.3.412