Human Choice Predicted by Obtained Reinforcers, Not by Reinforcement Predictors.

Macphail (1985) proposed that "intelligence" should not vary across vertebrate species when contextual variables are accounted for. Focusing on research involving choice behavior, the propensity for choosing an option that produces stimuli that predict the presence or absence of reinforcement but that also results in less food over time can be examined. This choice preference has been found multiple times in pigeons (Stagner and Zentall, 2010; Zentall and Stagner, 2011; Laude et al.

Do pigeons prefer alternatives that include near-hit outcomes?

Pigeons show suboptimal choice on a gambling-like task similar to that shown by humans. Humans also show a preference for gambles in which there are near hits (losses that come close to winning). In the present research, we asked if pigeons would show a preference for alternatives with near-hit-like trials.

Further investigation of the Monty Hall Dilemma in pigeons and rats.

In the Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD), three doors are presented with a prize behind one and participants are instructed to choose a door. One of the unchosen doors not containing the prize is revealed, following which the participant can choose to stay with their chosen door or switch to the other one. The optimal strategy is to switch.

Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement.

Pigeons prefer an alternative that provides them with a stimulus 20% of the time that predicts 10 pellets of food and a different stimulus 80% of the time that predicts 0 pellets, over an alternative that provides them with a stimulus that always predicts 3 pellets of food, even though the preferred alternative provides them with considerably less food. It appears that the stimulus that predicts 10 pellets acts as a strong conditioned reinforcer, despite the fact that the stimulus that predicts 0 pellets occurs 4 times as often. In the present research, we tested the hypothesis that early in training conditioned inhibition develops to the 0-pellet stimulus, but later in training it dissipates.

Midsession reversals with pigeons: visual versus spatial discriminations and the intertrial interval.

Discrimination reversal learning has been used as a measure of species flexibility in dealing with changes in reinforcement contingency. In the simultaneous-discrimination, midsession-reversal task, one stimulus (S1) is correct for the first half of the session, and the other stimulus (S2) is correct for the second half. After training, pigeons show a curious pattern of choices: They begin to respond to S2 well before the reversal point (i.

The Monty Hall dilemma in pigeons: effect of investment in initial choice.

In the Monty Hall dilemma, humans are initially given a choice among three alternatives, one of which has a hidden prize. After choosing, but before it is revealed whether they have won the prize, they are shown that one of the remaining alternatives does not have the prize. They are then asked whether they want to stay with their original choice or switch to the remaining alternative.

Guilt by association and honor by association: the role of acquired equivalence.

Guilt by association and honor by association are two types of judgments that suggest that a negative or positive quality of a person or object can transfer to another person or object, merely by co-occurrence. Most examples have been demonstrated under conditions of direct associations. Here, we provide experimental evidence of guilt by association and honor by association via indirect associations.

Pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli independently of the overall probability of reinforcement and of the number of presentations of the conditioned reinforcer.

When pigeons are given a choice between two alternatives, one leading to a stimulus 20% of the time that always signals reinforcement (S+) or another stimulus 80% of the time that signals the absence of reinforcement (S-) and the other alternative leading to one of two stimuli each signaling reinforcement 50% of the time, the 20% reinforcement alternative is preferred although it provides only 40% as much reinforcement. In Phase 1 of the present experiment, we tested the hypothesis that pigeons compare the S+ associated with each alternative and ignore the S- by giving them a choice between two pairs of discriminative stimuli (20% S+, 80% S- and 50% S+, 50% S-). Reinforcement theory suggests that the alternative associated with more reinforcement should be preferred but the pigeons showed indifference.

Midsession reversal learning: why do pigeons anticipate and perseverate?

Past research has shown that when given a simultaneous visual-discrimination midsession reversal task, pigeons typically anticipate the reversal well before it occurs and perseverate after it occurs. It appears that they use the estimation of time (or trial number) into the session, rather than (or in addition to) the more reliable cue, the outcome from the previous trial (i.e.

Reversal learning in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columba livia): qualitative differences in behavioral flexibility.

Research has shown that pigeons given a simultaneous visually based discrimination reversal, in which a single reversal occurs at the midpoint of each session, consistently show anticipation prior to the reversal as well as perseveration after the reversal, suggesting that they use a less effective cue (time or trial number into the session) than what would be optimal to maximize reinforcement (local feedback from the most recent trials). In the present research, pigeons (Columba livia) and rats (Rattus norvegicus) were tested with a simultaneous spatial discrimination midsession reversal. Pigeons showed remarkably similar errors in anticipation and perseveration as with visual stimuli, thereby continuing to show the suboptimal use of time as a cue, whereas rats showed no anticipatory errors and very few perseverative errors, suggesting that they used local feedback as a cue, thus more nearly optimizing reinforcement.

Do pigeons prefer information in the absence of differential reinforcement?

Prior research has indicated that pigeons do not prefer an alternative that provides a sample (for matching to sample) over an alternative that does not provide a sample (i.e., there is no indication of which comparison stimulus is correct).

Sub-Optimal Choice by Pigeons: Failure to Support The Allais Paradox.

Pigeons show a preference for an alternative that provides them with discriminative stimuli (sometimes a stimulus that predicts reinforcement and at other times a stimulus that predicts the absence of reinforcement) over an alternative that provides them with non discriminative stimuli, even if the non discriminative stimulus alternative is associated with 2.5 times as much reinforcement (Stagner & Zentall, 1910). In Experiment 1 we found that the delay to reinforcement associated with the non discriminative stimuli could be reduced by almost one half before the pigeons were indifferent between the two alternatives.

Maladaptive choice behaviour by pigeons: an animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behaviour).

Consistent with human gambling behaviour but contrary to optimal foraging theory, pigeons showed maladaptive choice behaviour in experiment 1 by choosing an alternative that provided on average two food pellets over an alternative that provided a certain three food pellets. On 20 per cent of the trials, choice of the two-pellet alternative resulted in a stimulus that always predicted ten food pellets; on the remaining 80 per cent of the trials, the two-pellet alternative resulted in a different stimulus that always predicted zero food pellets. Choice of the three-pellet alternative always resulted in three food pellets.

Pigeons prefer conditional stimuli over their absence: a comment on Roberts et al. (2009).

Recently, Roberts et al. (2009) have suggested that pigeons performing delayed matching-to-sample appear unwilling to request to see the sample again (or even for the first time) prior to choice, even if that choice would result in an increase in matching accuracy. In each of their four experiments, however, presentation (Experiments 3 & 4) or representation of the sample (Experiments 1 & 2) resulted in an added delay to reinforcement.

Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons.

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.

Episodic-like memory: pigeons can report location pecked when unexpectedly asked.

Pigeons were tested for their ability to report the location they recently pecked, without prior experience having to do so. They were first pretrained to report the location that they had just pecked. They were then trained on a conditional discrimination to associate yellow and blue samples with vertical and horizontal comparisons, respectively, independent of comparison location.