A further study of choice and percentage reinforcement

Kendall, Stephen B.

doi:10.1016/0376-6357(85)90040-3

Cited by 31 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because between-subject variability is typically high, we cannot strongly argue against these predictions on the basis of the results presented here. It is noteworthy, however, that in each of the present experiments, as well as in those of Dunn and Spetch (1990), Kendall (1974Kendall ( , 1985, and Spetch et al (1990), mean choice proportions for the 50% side were above .5 in all signaled conditions with equal terminal links of 30 sec or longer. Furthermore, in a recent study (Belke, 1992;Belke & Spetch, 1994), 6 out of 8 pigeons displayed a strong preference for the 50% alternative in a variant of the present procedure in which they were forced to remain on the 50% side after they chose it until a food outcome occurred.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes

Spetch

Mondloch

Belke

et al. 1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons chose between 50% and 100% reinforcement on a discrete-trials concurrent-chains procedure with fixed-ratio 1 initial links and fixed-time terminal links. The 100% alternative always provided food after a terminal-link delay, whereas the 50% alternative provided food or blackout equally often after a delay. Additionally, the terminal-link stimuli on the 50% alternative were correlated with the outcomes in signaled, but not in unsignaled, conditions. The effects of intertrial-interval duration and length of the terminal-link delays on choice of the 50% alternative were investigated in four experiments. Preference for the 50% alternative varied with signal condition and duration of the terminal link leading to food, but not with duration of either intertrial interval or the terminal link leading to a blackout. The results are discussed in terms of conditioned-reinforcement effects, Mazur's hyperbolic-decay model, and delay reduction.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…However, pigeons do not always respond in this fashion (e.g., Kendall, 1974Kendall, , 1985Spetch, Belke, Barnet, Dunn, & Pierce, 1990). Instead, preference depends on the contingencies associated with the 50% alternative.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes

Spetch

Mondloch

Belke

et al. 1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This choice can be studied experimentally using a variation of the concurrent-chains procedure (Autor, 1969) with differing percentages of reinforcement in the terminal links (Fantino, Dunn, & Meck, 1979; Kendall, 1974Kendall, , 1985. Under this procedure, access to the terminal links is provided according to equal, independent schedules on the response keys during the initial links (i.e., choice phase), and access to an outcome is provided according to equal schedules for the two terminal links.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Preference for the unreliable alternative appears to depend on the use of short initiallink and long terminal-link schedules. Furthermore, this preference appears to develop reliably only in a "multiple" or "correlated" percentage-reinforcement procedure in which the food and no-food outcomes are signaled by terminal-link stimuli (Kendall, 1974(Kendall, , 1985.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice Between Reliable and Unreliable Outcomes: Mixed Percentage‐reinforcement in Concurrent Chains

Dunn

1987

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons' choices between alternatives that provided different percentages of reinforcement in mixed schedules were studied using the concurrent-chains procedure. In Experiment 1, the alternatives were terminal-link schedules that were equal in delay and magnitude of reinforcement, but that provided different percentages of reinforcement, with one schedule providing reinforcement twice as reliably as the other. All pigeons preferred the more reliable schedule, and their level of preference was not systematically affected by variation in the absolute percentage values, or in the magnitude of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, preference for a schedule providing 100% reinforcement over one providing 33% reinforcement increased systematically with increases in the duration of the terminal links. In contrast, preference decreased systematically with increases in the duration of the initial links. Experiment 3 examined choice with equal percentages of reinforcement but unequal delays to reinforcement. Preference for the shorter delay to reinforcement was not systematically affected by variation in the absolute percentage of reinforcement. The overall pattern of results supported predictions based on an extension of the delay-reduction hypothesis to choice procedures involving mixed schedules of percentage reinforcement.

show abstract

“…When working harder involves added pecking, it implies a longer delay to reinforcement and research on delay discounting implies that waiting longer serves to devalue the magnitude of reinforcement (Rachlin & Green, 1972). A more direct demonstration of the devaluation of reinforcement associated with nondiscriminative stimuli was demonstrated by several investigators Fantino, Dunn, & Meck., 1979;Kendall, 1974Kendall, , 1985Mazur, 1996;Spetch, Belke, Barnet, Dunn, & Pierce, 1990;Spetch, Mondloch, Belke, & Dunn, 1994). In that research, pigeons were given a choice between an alternative that provided discriminative stimuli, one associated with 100% reinforcement and the other with the absence of reinforcement (each occurring 50% of the time), and an alternative that always provided a stimulus associated with 100% reinforcement (see Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Animal Model of Human Gambling

Zentall

2016

Int. j. psychol. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article history: Received: 18-03-2016 Revised: 23-05-2016 Accepted: 26-05-2016 Key words: gambling, animal model, reinforcement and risk taking.Human gambling generally involves taking a risk on a low probability high outcome alternative over the more economically optimal high probability low outcome alternative (not gambling). Surprisingly, although optimal foraging theory suggests that animals should be sensitive to the overall probability of reinforcement, the results of many experiments suggest otherwise. For example, they do not prefer an alternative that 100% of the time provides them with a stimulus that always predicts reinforcement over an alternative that provides them with a stimulus that predicts reinforcement 50% of the time. This line of research leads to the conclusion that preference depends on the predictive value of the stimulus that follows and surprisingly, not on its frequency. A similar mechanism likely accounts for the suboptimal choice that humans have to engage in commercial gambling. RESUMENPalabras clave: juegos de azar, modelo animal, reforzamiento y toma de riesgo.En los humanos, los juegos de azar generalmente implican la toma de riesgo en alternativas de baja probabilidad y buenos resultados, sobre alternativas más probables y de resultados bajos pero económicamente óptimos (no apostar). Lo sorprendente es, que aunque la teoría de forrajeo optimo sugiere que los animales deberían ser sensibles a una probabilidad general de reforzamiento, los resultados de muchos experimentos sugieren lo contrario. Por ejemplo, los animales no prefieren una alternativa que en un 100% de las veces provea un estímulo que siempre prediga el reforzamiento por encima de una alternativa que provea un estímulo que prediga el reforzamiento en un 50% de las veces. Esta línea de investigación lleva a la conclusión de que las preferencias dependen del valor predictivo de los estímulos que los preceden, y no de su frecuencia como era de esperarse. Un mecanismo similar probablemente explicaría la elección subóptima que los humanos realizan en los juegos de azar comerciales.R e v i e w

show abstract

A further study of choice and percentage reinforcement

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes

Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes

Choice Between Reliable and Unreliable Outcomes: Mixed Percentage‐reinforcement in Concurrent Chains

An Animal Model of Human Gambling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About