Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall Dilemma.

Herbranson, Walter T.; Schroeder, Julia

doi:10.1037/a0017703

Cited by 67 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To examine the performance of humans on a task conceptually similar to that in Zentall and Stagner, an analog task in the form of a video game was developed. Exploration of similarities and differences between human and nonhuman learning processes can be simplified by the use of video games with humans (e.g., Herbranson, Fremouw, & Shrimp, 1999Herbranson & Shroeder, 2010;Madden, Ewan, & Lagorio, 2007;Rayburn-Reeves, Molet, & Zentall, 2011;Rosati & Stevens, 2009). In our computer task, participants chose between two alternatives (two planetary systems: ZORB or ARTO).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consistent with human gambling behavior but contrary to optimal foraging theory, pigeons show a strong preference for an alternative with low probability and high payoff (a gambling-like alternative) over an alternative with a greater net payoff (Zentall & Stagner, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 1203Society B, 278, -1208Society B, 278, , 2011. In the present research, we asked whether humans would show suboptimal choice on a task involving choices with probabilities similar to those for pigeons. In Experiment 1, when we selected participants on the basis of their self-reported gambling activities, we found a significantly greater choice of the alternative involving low probability and high payoff (gambling-like alternative) than for a group that reported an absence of gambling activity. In Experiment 2, we found that when the inhibiting abilities of typical humans were impaired by a self-regulatory depletion manipulation, they were more likely to choose the gambling-like alternative. Taken together, the results suggest that this task is suitable for the comparative study of suboptimal decision-making behavior and the mechanisms that underlie it.Keywords decision making . suboptimal choice . gambling . humans . pigeons A subset of suboptimal decision making can be characterized as making a decision to choose a low-probability but high-payoff alternative (e.g., playing slot machines or buying lottery tickets) over a high-probability, low-payoff alternative (not gambling), such that the net expected return is less than what one has wagered. In this kind of gambling, over the long term, one is very likely to lose more than one wins, and having sufficient experience with the game to learn about the odds of winning does not appear to reduce its frequency. It appears that gamblers tend to over-attend to wins and discount losses (the availability heuristic; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).Recently, Zentall and colleagues studied suboptimal decision-making processes in pigeons (Gipson, Alessandri, Miller, & Zentall, 2009;Stagner & Zentall, 2010;Zentall & Stagner, 2011). They asked whether pigeons would show choice behavior analogous to the suboptimal behavior shown by humans when humans purchase a lottery ticket or engage in casino gambling. To answer this question, Zentall and Stagner designed a task that may be considered analogous to human gambling (see Fig. 1a). In this task, pigeons are given a choice between one alternative reliably associated with three reinforcers (analogous to money in one's pocket) and a second alternative (analogous to gambling) associated with a low-probability, high-payoff stimulus on some trials (10 pellets on 20% of the trials) or a highprobability, zero-payoff stimulus on others. In one sense, the task is analogous to suboptimal human gambling, because the average payoff for the first alternative (with an overall mean reinforcement per trial of 3 pellets) is greater than that of the second alternative (with an overall mean reinforcement per trial of 2 pellets). Results show...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, pigeons distributed a higher proportion of their responses to the higher-paying alternative than did humans in procedurally equivalent tasks (Goodie & Fantino, 1995Hartl & Fantino, 1996). Some research teams have reported that nonhuman animals appear to respond in a way that better maximizes payoffs than humans to probabilistic game-like tasks such as the Monty Hall Dilemma (e.g., Herbranson & Schroeder, 2010), although this is not always the case (e.g., Klein, Evans, Schultz, & Beran, 2013;Mazur & Kahlbaugh, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Differential Responding by Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and Humans (Homo sapiens) to Variable Outcomes in the Assurance Game

Parrish¹,

Brosnan²,

Wilson³

et al. 2014

ABC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. (2014). Differential responding by rhesus ronkeys (Macaca mulatta) and humans (Homo sapiens) to variable outcomes in the assurance game. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1(3), 215-229. doi: 10.12966/abc.08.01.2014 Abstract -Behavioral flexibility in how one responds to variable partner play can be examined using economic coordination games in which subjects play against a variety of partners and therefore may need to alter their behavior to produce the highest payoff. But how do we study this behavioral flexibility once players have settled on a response? Here, we investigated how responding by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and humans (Homo sapiens) playing a computerized single-player version of a coordination game, the Assurance game, changed as a function of the variable responses (Stag/Hare) generated by multiple simulations (SIMs). We were interested in whether individuals could track and differentially respond to changing frequencies of Stag and Hare play by the SIMs, especially with regard to the payoff dominant (Stag-Stag) outcome, something that could not be done with real partners as they quickly settled on the Stag response. For both monkeys and humans, there was a linear relationship between proportion of Stag play by the subject and the likelihood of the Stag choice by the SIM such that both species increased their use of Stag as the SIM increased its use of the Stag response. However, humans more closely matched their proportion of Stag responses to that of the SIM, whereas monkeys adopted a different, but equally effective, strategy of exploiting the higher-paying Stag alternative. These results suggest that monkeys and humans demonstrate sensitivity to a dynamic game environment in which they encounter variable contingencies for the same response options, although they may employ different strategies to maximize reward.

show abstract

“…It turns out that if you want advice on how to best play the game, ask a pigeon. Herbranson and Schroeder (2010) gave pigeons and humans repeated chances to play the Monty Hall game and found, again, that humans failed to adopt optimal strategies, even with extensive training. But pigeons Figure 4.…”

Section: The Monty Hall Problem and Misrepresenting Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

To Err Is (Not Only) Human: Fallibility as a Window Into Primate Cognition

Beran¹

2017

CCBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human cognition affords our species an excellent toolbox for solving problems. Many nonhuman animal species appear to share with humans some of these tools. However, human cognition also is fallible. Susceptibility to perceptual illusions, misrepresentation of probabilities, cognitive biases, faulty memory, and heuristics all present sources of error from which behavior is suboptimal in the pursuit of goals. Some nonhuman species share these perceptual and cognitive biases with humans. Examples of this are described for nonhuman primates, ranging from perceptual illusions to humanlike failures on games of probability such as the Monty Hall Problem. Sometimes the performances of nonhuman primates mirror those of humans, but there are exceptions. Given that other species do experience things erroneously and make errors in judgment, it is an exciting question of whether they also might generate any strategies to offset their fallibility. Two examples to suggest that they do are provided from research with chimpanzees. One is of strategic self-distraction in the face of tempting rewards in a delay of gratification task. The other is of information-seeking behaviors in different contexts where chimpanzees have different types of information. This research, and that of many other groups, shows the value of examining perceptual and cognitive errors across species, and how different individuals and different species may be equipped psychologically to deal with the possibility of these errors occurring. Keywords: primate cognition, perception, illusions, self-control, metacognition IntroductionThe 20th century saw a shift in how humans thought about nonhuman animals (hereafter, animals), their behavior, and the cognitive processes that might underlie their behavior. Comparative cognition emerged as a strong discipline in the second half of the century, largely as a result of the broader cognitive revolution in human psychology, continued developments in ethology, and new opportunities to study a diverse range of species (Shettleworth, 2010). Earlier comparative psychologists certainly took an interest in aspects of cognition (see Dewsbury, 1984Dewsbury, , 2000Dewsbury, , 2013, but researchers in the second half of the century provided new approaches to understanding animal minds. Initially these approaches focused largely on traditional aspects of human cognitive psychology, including memory, perceptual capacities, and learning phenomenon (e.g., Honig & Fetterman, 1992;Hulse, Fowler, & Honig, 1978;Roitblat, Bever, & Terrace, 1984), as they might reflect the use of mental representations and other information-processing approaches for interacting with the world. Later, 58COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS Beran research increasingly focused on questions that covered nearly every topic found in a human cognitive psychology textbook, and even questions that were not typically discussed in such sources (e.g., theory of mind, deception, mind reading, cooperative decision making, metacognition, mental time travel, and ot...

show abstract

Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall Dilemma.

Cited by 67 publications

References 32 publications

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

Differential Responding by Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and Humans (Homo sapiens) to Variable Outcomes in the Assurance Game

To Err Is (Not Only) Human: Fallibility as a Window Into Primate Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About