4.2 Article

RISKY CHOICE IN PIGEONS: PREFERENCE FOR AMOUNT VARIABILITY USING A TOKEN-REINFORCEMENT SYSTEM

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR
Volume 98, Issue 2, Pages 139-154

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2012.98-139

Keywords

risky choice; reinforcer amount; adjusting amount; token reinforcement; gambling; key peck; pigeon

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [F31DA024937, T32DA007268, R01DA026127]
  2. National Science Foundation [IBN 0420747]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pigeons were given repeated choices between variable and fixed numbers of token reinforcers (stimulus lamps arrayed above the response keys), with each earned token exchangeable for food. The number of tokens provided by the fixed-amount option remained constant within blocks of sessions, but varied parametrically across phases, assuming values of 2, 4, 6, or 8 tokens per choice. The number of tokens provided by the variable-amount option varied between 0 and 12 tokens per choice, arranged according to an exponential or rectangular distribution. In general, the pigeons strongly preferred the variable option when the fixed option provided equal or greater numbers of tokens than the variable amount. Preference for the variable amount decreased only when the alternatives provided widely disparate amounts favoring the fixed amount. When tokens were removed from the experimental context, preference for the variable option was reduced or eliminated, suggesting that the token presentation played a key role in maintaining risk-prone choice patterns. Choice latencies varied inversely with preferences, suggesting that local analyses may provide useful ancillary measures of reinforcer value. Overall, the results indicate that systematic risk sensitivity can be attained with respect to reinforcer amount, and that tokens may be critical in the development of such preferences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available