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

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, 1203-1208, 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.

[1]  P. Franses,et al.  I felt low and my purse feels light: depleting mood regulation attempts affect risk decision making , 2009 .

[2]  Julia E. Schroeder,et al.  Are birds smarter than mathematicians? Pigeons (Columba livia) perform optimally on a version of the Monty Hall Dilemma. , 2010, Journal of comparative psychology.

[3]  Kristina F. Pattison,et al.  Self-Control Without a “Self”? , 2010, Psychological science.

[4]  T. Zentall,et al.  Simultaneous discrimination reversal learning in pigeons and humans: anticipatory and perseverative errors , 2011, Learning & behavior.

[5]  Holly C. Miller,et al.  Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons , 2009, Learning & behavior.

[6]  C. Nathan DeWall,et al.  Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression , 2007 .

[7]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Depletion Makes the Heart Grow Less Helpful: Helping as a Function of Self-Regulatory Energy and Genetic Relatedness , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[8]  A. Rosati,et al.  Rational decisions: The adaptive nature of context-dependent choice , 2009 .

[9]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Comparative cognition : experimental explorations of animal intelligence , 2009 .

[10]  Walter T. Herbranson,et al.  Categorizing a moving target in terms of its speed, direction, or both. , 2002, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength , 2011 .

[12]  M. Muraven,et al.  Self-Control Depletion Leads to Increased Risk Taking , 2010 .

[13]  Jessica P. Stagner,et al.  Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Serge H. Ahmed,et al.  Risk-Prone Individuals Prefer the Wrong Options on a Rat Version of the Iowa Gambling Task , 2009, Biological Psychiatry.

[15]  H. Lesieur,et al.  The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SaGS): A New Instrument for the Identification of Pathological Gamblers , 2010 .

[16]  渡辺 茂,et al.  Rational animals, irrational humans , 2009 .

[17]  Stimuli Signaling Rewards That Follow a Less-Preferred Event Are Themselves Preferred: Implications for Cognitive Dissonance , 2009 .

[18]  Gregory L. Stuart,et al.  Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[19]  T. Oei,et al.  Pathological gambling. A comprehensive review. , 2002, Clinical psychology review.

[20]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Self-Regulation Failure: An Overview , 1996 .

[21]  T. Fremouw,et al.  The randomization procedure in the study of categorization of multidimensional stimuli by pigeons. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[22]  R. Macarthur,et al.  On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[23]  Carla H. Lagorio,et al.  Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards III: Steady-state assessments, forced-choice trials, and all real rewards , 2005, Behavioural Processes.

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[25]  Carla H. Lagorio,et al.  Toward an Animal Model of Gambling: Delay Discounting and the Allure of Unpredictable Outcomes , 2007, Journal of Gambling Studies.

[26]  M. Zuckerman,et al.  `Chasing' in gambling behavior: personality and cognitive determinants , 1999 .

[27]  K. Vohs,et al.  Intellectual performance and ego depletion: role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource? , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Kristina F. Pattison,et al.  Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  Jessica P. Stagner,et al.  Maladaptive choice behaviour by pigeons: an animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behaviour) , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  D. Veltman,et al.  Imaging studies in pathological gambling: similarities and differences with alcohol dependence , 2011 .

[32]  Thomas R. Zentall,et al.  Maladaptive “gambling” by Pigeons , 2011, Behavioural Processes.

[33]  D. Stephens.  The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences , 1981, Animal Behaviour.