A relational differential outcomes effect: pigeons can classify outcomes as “good” and “better”

In a conditional discrimination each of two sample stimuli indicates which of two comparison stimuli is correct. When correct choice following each conditional stimulus is followed by a different outcome (one kind of food following one, a different kind of food following the other) it often facilitates acquisition and improves memory. In transfer designs, in which two different conditional discriminations are followed by the same two differential outcomes, outcome expectation can be shown to be sufficient for comparison choice. That is, the samples from one conditional discrimination are matched to comparisons from the other conditional discrimination based on the common outcomes alone. In the present study we asked if for pigeons the relative value of the differential outcomes (higher versus lower value) can serve as the basis for comparison choice, independent of other characteristics of the outcomes and of differential sample responding. That is, would different outcomes that could be described as “good” and “better” form two stimulus classes. For one conditional discrimination, the differential outcomes involved differential probability of reinforcement for choice of the correct comparison stimulus (0.80 vs. 0.20 for correct choice of the two comparisons, respectively). For the other conditional discrimination, the differential outcomes involved differential responding to the two comparison stimuli (5 pecks vs. 20 pecks to the correct comparisons, respectively). On test trials, when conditional stimuli from the two conditional discriminations were interchanged and the relative value of the differential outcomes could serve as the only basis for comparison choice, we found positive transfer. The results indicate that relational attributes of outcomes can serve as effective cues for comparison choice.     

Quantitative analyses of matching-to-sample performance

Six pigeons performed a simultaneous matching-to-sample (MTS) task involving patterns of dots on a liquid-crystal display. Two samples and two comparisons differed in terms of the density of pixels visible through pecking keys mounted in front of the display. Selections of Comparison 1 after Sample 1, and of Comparison 2 after Sample 2, produced intermittent access to food, and errors always produced a time-out. The disparity between the samples and between the comparisons varied across sets of conditions. The ratio of food deliveries for the two correct responses varied over a wide range within each set of conditions, and one condition arranged extinction for correct responses following Sample 1. The quantitative models proposed by Davison and Tustin (1978), Alsop (1991), and Davison (1991) failed to predict performance in some extreme reinforcer-ratio conditions because comparison choice approached indifference (and strong position biases emerged) when the sample clearly signaled a low (or zero) rate of reinforcement. An alternative conceptualization of the reinforcement contingencies operating in MTS tasks is advanced and was supported by further analyses of the data. This model relates the differential responding between the comparisons following each sample to the differential reinforcement for correct responses following that sample.     

Control of pigeons' matching-to-sample performance by differential sample response requirements

Pigeons were trained on a matching-to-sample task in which sample hue and required sample-specific observing behavior provided redundant, relevant cues for correct choices. On trials that involved red and yellow hues as comparison stimuli, a fixed-ratio 16 schedule (FR 16) was required to illuminate the comparisons when the sample was red, and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates 3-sec schedule (DRL 3-sec) was required when the sample was yellow. On trials involving blue and green hues as comparison stimuli, an FR 16 schedule was required when the sample was blue and a DRL 3-sec schedule was required when the sample was green. For some pigeons, a 0-sec delay intervened between sample offset and comparison onset, whereas other pigeons experienced a random mixture of 0-sec and 2-sec delay trials. Test trial performance at 0-sec delay indicated that sample-specific behavior controlled choice performance considerably more than sample hue did. Test performance was independent of whether original training involved all 0-sec delay trials or a mixture of 0-sec and 2-sec delays. Sample-specific observing response requirements appear to facilitate pigeons' matching-to-sample performance by strengthening associations between the observing response and correct choice.     

The development of emergent differential sample behavior in pigeons

Three experiments attempted to replicate Manabe, Kawashima, and Staddon's (1995) finding of emergent differential sample behavior in budgerigars that has been interpreted as evidence of functional equivalence class formation. In Experiments 1 and 2, pigeons initially learned two-sample/ two-alternative matching to sample in which comparison presentation was contingent on pecking one sample on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule and the other on a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule. Later, two new samples were added to the task. Comparison presentation on these trials occurred after the first sample peck following a predetermined interval (Experiment 1) or after completion of either the DRL or FR requirement, whichever occurred first (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 found no evidence for emergent spaced versus rapid responding to the new samples as they established conditional control over the familiar choices. By contrast, differential responding did emerge for some pigeons in Experiment 2, with responding to each new sample coinciding with the pattern explicitly conditioned to the original sample occasioning the same comparison choice. This emergent effect, however, disappeared for most pigeons with continued training. Experiment 3 systematically replicated Experiment 2 using differential peck location as the sample behavior. Differential location pecking emerged to the new samples for most pigeons and remained intact throughout training. Our findings demonstrate a viable pigeon analogue to the budgerigar emergent calling paradigm and are discussed in terms of equivalence- and non-equivalence-based processes.     

On the origins of emergent differential sample behavior

Two experiments evaluated the source(s) of emergent differential sample behavior in pigeons. Initially, pigeons learned two-sample, two-alternative symbolic matching in which different patterns of sample responding were required to produce the comparisons. Afterwards, two other samples nominally identical to the comparisons were added to the matching task. On new-sample trials, completion of either sample-response requirement produced comparison alternatives which were either the same as or different from the alternatives on the familiar-sample trials. Differential responding to the new samples developed only when the comparisons were the same as the familiar samples. The results are consistent with acquired sample equivalence and adventitious reinforcement accounts of emergent sample behavior and are inconsistent with bidirectional transfer (symmetry) between the response patterns explicitly required to the originally trained (familiar) samples and the subsequently reinforced comparisons.     

Prospective versus retrospective coding of samples of stimuli,responses, and reinforcers in delayed matching with pigeons

Pigeons' performance with samples of stimuli (red and green), number of responses (1 and 20), and reinforcers (food and no food) was assessed in a matching-to-sample preparation. Samples of red, 20 responses, and food were each associated with the red comparison stimulus; samples of green, 1 response, and no food were each associated with the green comparison stimulus. Interest focused on whether physically different samples associated with the same comparison stimulus each establish a unique memorial representation embodying the physical attributes of the sample (retrospective coding), or whether they activate a unitary memorial representation embodying an instruction for test responding (prospective coding). In the first experiment, accuracy of choice responding was independent of whether successive sample presentations within a trial involved the same physical sample or physically different but associatively identical samples. A second experiment revealed that, in contrast to other matching preparations, accuracy was not reduced when sample elements were compounded during presentation. It was concluded that physically different samples which are associated with the same comparison stimulus are coded prospectively in terms of an instruction for choice responding.     

On the role of differential sample behaviors in matching-to-sample

Pigeons were trained on matching-to-sample (MTS) with differential sample-response requirements that were identical with respect to two pairs of sample stimuli but were either correlated or uncorrelated with correct choice. Experiment 1A showed that birds in the uncorrelated condition were slower to reach criterion levels of accuracy than birds in the correlated condition in spite of their equivalent sample discriminations. However, correlated birds were more disrupted in their matching performances than the uncorrelated birds when subsequently switched to nondifferential sample-response requirements (Experiment 1B). Experiment 2 showed that differential sample behaviors also generated higher levels of accuracy on delayed MTS when correlated with choice, and that accuracy in this condition did not differ as a function of whether the samples were hues or lines. Sample dimension did affect memory performance, on the other hand, in the uncorrelated condition. In Experiment 3, reversing differential sample-response requirements for one pair of samples substantially reduced matching accuracy in the correlated group but had almost no effect in the uncorrelated group. These findings demonstrate that differential sample behaviors directly control pigeons' matching performances and also overshadow conditional stimulus control by the samples when these behaviors are predictive of correct choice. The facilitation in matching produced by differential sample behaviors apparently arises from the additional cue these behaviors provide, not because they enhance sample discriminability.     

Effects of within-class differences in sample responding on acquired sample equivalence

Two experiments examined whether acquired sample equivalence in many-toone matching was affected by variation in sample-response requirements. In each experiment, pigeons responded on either identical or different response schedules to the sample stimuli that occasioned the same reinforced comparison choice (i.e., to the within-class samples). Transfer-of-control tests were then conducted to determine acquired equivalence, or lack thereof, between these samples. In both experiments, there was minimal or no evidence of acquired sample equivalence when pigeons responded differently to the samples within each common-choice class. By contrast, transfer was observed if pigeons responded (a) identically to all sample stimuli, or (b) identically to samples within each common-choice class (viz., to samples that occasioned the same reinforced choice) and differently to samples from different classes (viz., to samples that occasioned different choices). These results may help to explain the recent lack of evidence for response membership in pigeons' acquired equivalence (Urcuioli, Lionello-DeNolf, Michalek, & Vasconcelos, 2006). They also raise questions about the functional sample stimuli and about possible interactions between acquired equivalence and acquired distinctiveness.     

Intratrial proactive interference in pigeon short-term memory: Manipulation of stimulus dimension and dimensional similarity

Proactive interference was studied using an intratrial preparation in two delayed matching-to-sample experiments employing pigeons. On interference trials, an interfering sample and a target sample were presented successively and were followed by a test consisting of a choice between two stimuli, one associated with each sample. Control trials were identical to interference trials except that the interfering sample was not presented. On both types of trials, choice of the comparison corresponding to the target sample was defined as correct. Colored fields and line orientations were employed as sample stimuli in Experiment 1, and samples of food and no food and of number of pecks were employed in Experiment 2. Interference was found to be equally robust regardless of whether the interfering and target samples were each selected from any of the four dimensions (color, line orientation, food/no food, or number of pecks). Amount of interference was found to be independent of whether the interfering and target samples employed on a trial were selected from the same dimension or from different dimensions. Evidence was also obtained suggesting that line orientation comparison stimuli are more likely to elicit a response not based on memory than are color comparison stimuli.     

Memory mechanisms in pigeons: evidence of base-rate neglect

In delayed matching to sample, once acquired, pigeons presumably choose comparisons according to their memory for (the strength of) the sample. When memory for the sample is sufficiently weak, comparison choice should depend on the history of reinforcement associated with each of the comparison stimuli. In the present research, pigeons acquired two matching tasks in which Sample S1 was associated with one comparison from each task, C1 and C3, whereas Sample S2 was associated with Comparison C2, and Sample S3 was associated with Comparison C4. As the retention interval increased, the pigeons showed a bias to choose the comparison (C1 or C3) associated with the more frequently occurring sample (S1). Thus, pigeons were sensitive also to the (irrelevant) likelihood that each of the samples was presented. The results suggest that pigeons may allow their reference memory for the overall sample frequency to influence comparison choice, independent of the comparison stimuli present.     

Developmental patterns of change in the influence of safe and risky peer choices on risky decision‐making

Adolescents take more risks when peers monitor their behavior. However, it is largely unknown how different types of peer influence affect adolescent decision‐making. In this study, we investigate how information about previous choices of peers differentially influences decision‐making in adolescence and young adulthood. Participants (N = 99, age range 12–22) completed an economic choice task in which choice options were systematically varied on levels of risk and ambiguity. On each trial, participants selected between a safer choice (low variability in outcome) and a riskier choice (high variability in outcome). Participants made choices in three conditions: a solo condition in which they made choices with no additional information, a social condition in which they saw choices of supposed peers, and a computer condition in which they saw choices of a computer. Results showed that participants’ choices conform to the choices made by the peers, but not a computer. Furthermore, when peers chose the safe option, late adolescents were especially likely to make a safe choice. Conversely, when the peer made a risky choice, late adolescents were least likely to follow choices made by the peer. We did not find evidence for differential influence of social information on decisions depending on their level of risk and ambiguity. These results show that information about previous decisions of peers are a powerful modifier for behavior and that the effect of peers on adolescents’ decisions is less ubiquitous and more specific than previously assumed.     

Verbal self-reports about matching to sample: effects of the number of elements in a compound sample stimulus.

Adults' self-reports about their choices in a delayed matching-to-sample task were studied as a function of the number of elements (one, two, or three) in a compound sample stimulus. Signal-detection analyses were used to examine control of self-reports by the number of sample elements, by the speed and accuracy of choices reported about, and by several events contingent on self-reports. On each matching-to-sample trial, a sample element appeared as one of two comparison stimuli. Choice of the matching element, if made within 500 ms of the onset of the comparison stimuli, produced points worth money or chances in a drawing for money, depending on the subject. After each choice, subjects pressed either a "yes" or "no" button to answer a computer-generated query about whether the choice met the point contingency. The number of sample elements in the matching-to-sample task varied across trials, and events contingent on self-reports varied across experimental conditions. In Experiment 1, the conditions were defined by different combinations of feedback messages and point consequences contingent on self-reports, but self-reports were systematically influenced only by the sample-stimulus manipulation. Self-report errors increased with the number of sample elements. False alarms (inaccurate reports of success) were far more common than misses (inaccurate reports of failure), and false alarms were especially likely after choices that were correct but too slow to meet the point contingency. Sensitivity (A') of self-reports decreases as the number of sample elements increased. In addition, self-reports were more sensitive to choice accuracy than to choice speed. All subjects showed a pronounced bias (B'H) for reporting successful responses, although the bias was reduced as the number of sample elements increased and successful choices became less frequent. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the failure of point contingencies to influence self-reports in the first experiment was not due to a general ineffectiveness of the point consequences. Rates of inaccurate self-reports decreased when they resulted in point losses and increased when they resulted in point gains.     

Determinants of pigeons' choices in token-based self-control procedures

Four pigeons were exposed to a token-based self-control procedure with stimulus lights serving as token reinforcers. Smaller-reinforcer choices produced one token immediately; larger-reinforcer choices produced three tokens following a delay. Each token could be exchanged for 2-s access to food during a signaled exchange period each trial. The main variables of interest were the exchange delays (delays from the choice to the exchange stimulus) and the food delays (also timed from the choice), which were varied separately and together across blocks of sessions. When exchange delays and food delays were shorter following smaller-reinforcer choices, strong preference for the smaller reinforcer was observed. When exchange delays and food delays were equal for both options, strong preference for the larger reinforcer was observed. When food delays were equal for both options but exchange delays were shorter for smaller-reinforcer choices, preference for the larger reinforcer generally was less extreme than under conditions in which both exchange and food delays were equal. When exchange delays were equal for both options but food delays were shorter for smaller-reinforcer choices, preference for the smaller reinforcer generally was less extreme than under conditions in which both exchange and food delays favored smaller-reinforcer choices. On the whole, the results were consistent with prior research on token-based self-control procedures in showing that choices are governed by reinforcer immediacy when exchange and food delays are unequal and by reinforcer amount when exchange and food delays are equal. Further, by decoupling the exchange delays from food delays, the results tentatively support a role for the exchange stimulus as a conditioned reinforcer.     

The allure of the alignable: younger and older adults' false memories of choice features

When making choices, people often try to directly compare the features of different options rather than evaluating each option separately. Not every feature has an analogous (or alignable) feature in the other option, however. In this study, both younger and older adults filled in such gaps when remembering, creating features in the other option to contrast with existing features. Thus, participants had a tendency to remember choice options as more comparable than they originally were. High performance on tasks tapping strategic processing was associated with a pattern of mostly feature-based comparisons during choice for older adults but with a pattern of mostly option-based comparisons for younger adults. This pattern suggests that younger and older adults' comparison processes are influenced by different goals.     

Local proactive interference in delayed matching to sample: the role of reinforcement

Discriminability in delayed matching to sample was lower when the samples on consecutive trials differed compared with when samples on consecutive trials were the same. This local proactive interference occurred when correct choices on the previous trial were reinforced but not when correct choices on the previous trial were not reinforced. When the choice on the previous trial was incorrect, discriminability was higher on different consecutive trials than on same trials. These effects were amplified by varying the ratio of reinforcers for correct choices, as predicted by a model that attributes local proactive interference to an interaction between control by the sample on the current trial and the influence of reinforcers for correct choices on previous trials.     

An analysis of confusion errors in many-to-one matching with temporal and nontemporal samples

In experiment 1, pigeons were trained to match temporal (2, 8, and 10 s of houselight) and location (feeder light, left key, center key illumination) samples to color comparison stimuli. Red choices were correct following the 2-s and feeder light, orange choices were correct following the 8-s and center key, and green choices were correct following the 10-s and left key. Samples that were harder to discriminate (8- vs 10-s, and left vs center key) were mapped onto comparisons that were easy to discriminate (orange vs green), while samples that were easier to discriminate (2- vs 8-s, and feeder light vs left key) were mapped onto comparisons that were hard to discriminate(red vs orange). The pattern of errors for temporal and location samples indicated that these samples were not represented by a common code even though they were associated with the same comparison stimuli. In experiment 2, the same pigeons were trained with visual samples in which samples that were hard to discriminate (triangle vs circle) were mapped onto comparisons that were easy to discriminate (orange vs green), while samples that were easy to discriminate(plus vs triangle) were mapped onto comparisons that were hard to discriminate (red vs orange). Following acquisition of the visual discrimination, the temporal samples were re-introduced and many-to-one training was continued. During delay testing, the pattern of errors for temporal and visual samples was equivalent and consistent with the hypothesis that visual samples were being coded in terms of the duration appropriate for the temporal sample with which it shared a common comparison response. Data from no-sample test sessions ruled out a simple response bias explanation of the data. The properties of common codes for temporal and nontemporal events can be somewhat flexible and more complicated than previously envisaged. Received: 21 January 1998 / Accepted after revision: 5 April 1998     

Chimpanzee responding during matching to sample: control by exclusion

Three chimpanzees performed a computerized matching-to-sample task in which samples were photographs of items and comparison stimuli were geometric symbols called lexigrams. In Experiment 1, samples were either defined (i.e., they represented items that were associated already with a specific lexigram label by the chimpanzees) or undefined (i.e., they did not have an already learned association with a specific lexigram). On each trial, the foil (incorrect) comparison could be either a defined or an undefined lexigram. All 3 chimpanzees selected the correct comparison for undefined samples at a level significantly better than chance only when the foil comparison was defined. In Experiment 2, three comparisons were presented on each trial, and in Experiment 3, four comparisons were presented on each trial. For Experiments 2 and 3, the foil comparisons consisted of either defined or undefined comparisons or a mixture of both. For these two experiments, when the chimpanzees were presented with an undefined sample, they typically made selections of only undefined comparisons. These data indicate that the chimpanzees responded through use of exclusion. A final experiment, however, indicated that, despite the use of exclusion to complete trials with undefined samples correctly, the chimpanzees did not learn new associations between undefined samples and comparisons.     

Cognitive, motivational, social, and environmental influences on children's food choices

This study tested the applicability of a cognitive-motivational model of health behavior to children's food choices. A sample of 107 elementary schoolchildren provided ratings of 15 foods in terms of possible choice criteria (e.g., how tasty or healthful specific foods were) and social or environmental influences (e.g., whether foods were eaten by friends or were easy to get). Several measures of food consumption were taken, and cognitive-developmental level was assessed. Within-person correlations were calculated between food choices and each choice criterion and social/environmental factor. These "correlational indices" of influences on food choice subsequently were used to identify five distinct subgroups in the sample. Children at the operational level of cognitive development tended to be in one of three groups characterized by health orientation in food choice, taste orientation, or multiple-motive orientation. Dietary quality was poorest in the taste-oriented group. Children at the preoperational level tended to have one of two undifferentiated patterns of values across the correlational indices. Results provide evidence of: the viability of cognitive-motivational models to explain children's food choices, the promise of within-person research methodology, and the potential for enhanced health behavior-change programs by use of population segmentation and tailored interventions.     

Mediational use of internal representations of food and no-food events by pigeons

Two experiments were conducted with pigeons to determine whether internal representations of food and no-food events can act as mediators in the formation of new associations. Specifically we asked if the representation of an anticipated event can replace the event itself in an established conditional discrimination. In Phase 1 of both experiments pigeons were differentially autoshaped to peck hue stimuli, only one of which was followed by access to food. In Phase 2 they were trained on a symbolic 0-delay matching-to-sample (DMTS) task with food and no-food samples and line-orientation comparisons. In Phase 3 the birds were tested on a symbolic DMTS task in which the hue stimuli from Phase 1 were substituted for the Phase 2 food-event samples. For the Pos group, the hue followed by food in Phase 1 was substituted for the food sample and the hue associated with no-food was substituted for the no-food sample so that the resulting sample/comparison pairings were consistent with the food-event mediator. For the Neg group the pairings were reversed so that the sample/comparison pairings were inconsistent with the food-event mediators. In Experiment 1, when the no-food event was the absence of an event, acquisition of the transfer task was significantly more rapid in the Pos than in the Neg condition. In Experiment 2, when the no-food event was the presentation of an empty food hopper, the Pos group transferred at a significantly higher level than the Neg group. The two experiments provide evidence that in pigeons, representations involving event anticipations can be substituted for, and are thus similar to, the events themselves.