The Basis of Superstitious Behavior: Chance Contingency, Stimulus Substitution, or Appetitive Behavior?

Abstract

This research examined three explanations for the "superstitious" behavior of pigeons under frequent fixed-time delivery of food: accidental response-reward contingency, stimulus substitution, and elicited species-typical appetitive behavior. The behavior observed in these studies consisted of occasional postfood locomotion away from the food hopper, and a predominant pattern of activity directed toward the hopper wall (wall-directed behavior), including approaching, stepping side to side, scratching with the feet, bumping with the breast, pendulum movements of the extended neck, and head bobbing, though not pecking. The consistency of these behavior patterns argued against explanation by accidental response contingencies, and the complexity of behavior was incompatible with the classic stimulus-substitution account. These studies also showed that: (1) response contingencies and prior stimulus experience can modify wall-directed behavior, but within definable limits; (2) pecking sometimes can be obtained in birds of specific strains, and by providing extended training; (3) placing the hopper in the floor at the center of a large chamber replaces wall-directed behavior with circling in a manner that resembles ground foraging for food. We conclude that superstitious behavior under periodic delivery of food probably develops from components of species-typical patterns of appetitive behavior related to feeding. These patterns are elicited by a combination of frequent food presentations and the supporting stimuli present in the environment.Key words: superstitious behavior, appetitive behavior, behavior systems, stimulus substitution, fixed-time schedules, wall-directed behavior, pecking, pigeons When pigeons receive food at frequent fixed times independent of their behavior, they rapidly develop a set of relatively stereotyped responses. These responses are typically described as "superstitious" because they emerge in the absence of actual environmental contingencies, presumably like superstitious behavior in humans (Skinner, 1948). The point of the present studies was to explore the form and causation of such behavior in pigeons. We will use the term superstitious (without quotes) to refer to behavior that emerges under a response-independent schedule, but without presumption as to its causation.The two predominant explanations of superstitious behavior in pigeons are the acci-

Motivational mechanisms and schedule-induced behavioral stereotypy

“…The approach described by Timberlake (1983a) and Timberlake and Lucas (1985) would appear to be more consistent with the present results. Their behaviorsystem view predicts that the type and rate of behaviors that arise in response to scheduled uess will depend on the behavioral conglomerate activated by the ues used.…”

“…Overall, the findings of this experiment are usefully viewed from the behavior-system perspective (Timberlake, 1983a;Timberlake & Lucas, 1985). Intermittent food presentations activate food-related foraging patterns.…”

“…From a behavior-system perspective (Timberlake, 1983a;Timberlake & Lucas, 1985), water anticipatory behavior may not be very persistent for pigeons. In comparison with food availability in the natural environment, water is usually easily found (especially from the air) and is typically in generous supply when located.…”

“…Both Falk's and Staddon and Simmelhags theories assume that interim behavior is not related to the appetitive stimulus but involves motivational mechanisms other than the one that relates to the UCS. Timberlake (1983a) and Timberlake and Lucas (1985) suggested that interim behavior was part of the behavior system that is activated in the particular experimental situation. The theory, which is called the "behavior-system" approach, holds that a motivational system consists of "preorganized behavioral components and stimulus sensitivities" (Timberlake & Lucas, 1985, p. 297).…”

Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning

“…Timberlake and Lucas (1985) in our work on the superstition paradigm proposed that the dominant responses of pressing against the wall and head bobbing in the absence of overt predictive stimuli could provide a ground for keypecking, especially because it appeared related to early niche-related behavior of begging crop-milk and food from adults. In support of this proposal, we have shown that ring doves (a congener of pigeons also feeding crop milk) show similar walldirected 'superstitious' behavior, while chickens show scratching and pecking the floor.…”