Whereas humans are risk averse for monetary gains, other animals can be risk seeking for food rewards, especially when faced with variable delays or under significant deprivation. A key difference between these findings is that humans are often explicitly told about the risky options, whereas non-human animals must learn about them from their own experience. We tested pigeons (Columba livia) and humans in formally identical choice tasks where all outcomes were learned from experience. Both species were more risk seeking for larger rewards than for smaller ones. The data suggest that the largest and smallest rewards experienced are overweighted in risky choice. This observed bias towards extreme outcomes represents a key step towards a consilience of these two disparate literatures, identifying common features that drive risky choice across phyla.

Pigeons chose between an (optimal) alternative that sometimes provided food after a 10-s delay and other times after a 40-s delay and another (suboptimal) alternative that sometimes provided food after 10 s but other times no food after 40 s. When outcomes were not signaled during the delays, pigeons strongly preferred the optimal alternative. When outcomes were signaled, choices of the suboptimal alternative increased and most pigeons preferred the alternative that provided no food after the long delay despite the cost in terms of obtained food. The pattern of results was similar whether the short delays occurred on 25% or 50% of the trials. Shortening the 40-s delay to food sharply reduced suboptimal choices, but shortening the delay to no food had little effect. The results suggest that a signaled delay to no food does not punish responding in probabilistic choice procedures. The findings are discussed in terms of conditioned reinforcement by signals for good news.

No abstract

In games of chance, a near miss is said to occur when feedback for a loss approximates a win. For instance, obtaining “cherry–cherry–lemon” on a slot machine could be considered a near miss. Sixty-six years ago, B.F. Skinner first proposed the idea that near-miss events might reinforce continued play in slot machines, and despite some inconsistencies in the experimental literature, belief in this “near-miss effect” has remained strong. In the present manuscript, we will review this literature and present experimental assessments of the near-miss effect on the frequency of the gambling response. Experiment 1 used a tightly controlled resistance-to-extinction procedure in pigeons to evaluate the putative reinforcing effect of near misses relative to a control “far-miss” reel pattern. Experiment 2 extended Experiment 1’s procedure to human participants. The results of both experiments failed to support the near-miss effect hypothesis. Experiment 3 used a further simplified procedure to assess the validity of the resistance-to-extinction paradigm when a probable conditional reinforcer was present on the reel stimuli. Although a clear conditional response was obtained from the reel, subsequent testing in extinction revealed no conditionally reinforcing function of this stimulus on operant response frequency.

When making risky decisions, people and pigeons often show similar choice patterns. When people learn the reward probabilities through repeated exposure to the outcomes, their preference is disproportionately influenced by the extreme (highest and lowest) outcomes occurring in the decision context. Overweighting of these extremes increases preference for risky alternatives that lead to the highest outcome and decreases preference for risky alternatives that lead to the lowest outcome, termed the extreme-outcome rule. This rule predicts greater risk seeking for choices between safe and risky high-value outcomes than for choices between safe and risky low-value outcomes, when both choices occur in the same context. In a series of studies, we examine how this extreme-outcome rule generalizes within and across two evolutionary distant species: pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). Both species showed risky choices consistent with the extreme-outcome rule when a low-value risky option could yield an outcome of zero. When all outcome values were increased such that none of the options could lead to zero, people but not pigeons were still consistent with the extreme-outcome rule. Unlike people, pigeons no longer avoided a low-value risky option when it yielded a non-zero food outcome.These results suggest that, despite some similarities, different mechanisms underlie risky choice in pigeons and people.