Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal-link length.

Pigeons' choice between reliable (100%) and unreliable (50%) reinforcement was studied using a concurrent-chains procedure. Initial links were fixed-ratio 1 schedules, and terminal links were equal fixed-time schedules. The duration of the terminal links was varied across conditions. The terminal link on the reliable side always ended in food; the terminal link on the unreliable side ended with food 50% of the time and otherwise with blackout. Different stimuli present during the 50% terminal links signaled food or blackout outcomes under signaled conditions but were uncorrelated with outcomes under unsignaled conditions. In signaled conditions, most pigeons displayed a nearly exclusive preference for the 100% alternative when terminal links were short (5 or 10 s), but with terminal links of 30 s or longer, preference for the 100% alternative was sharply reduced (often to below .5). In unsignaled conditions, most pigeons showed extreme preference for the 100% alternative with either short (5 s) or longer (30 s) terminal links. Thus, pigeons' choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement is influenced by both the signal conditions on the unreliable alternative and the duration of the terminal-link delay. With a long delay and signaled outcomes, many pigeons display a suboptimal tendency to choose the unreliable side.     

Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement

Pigeons' choices between a reliable alternative that always provided food after a delay (i.e., 100% reinforcement) and an unreliable one that provided food or blackout equally often after a delay (i.e., 50% reinforcement) was studied using a discrete-trials concurrent-chains procedure modified to prevent choice between alternatives following a blackout outcome. Initial links were fixed-ratio 1 schedules, and terminal links were fixed-time schedules. Stimuli presented during the terminal-link delays were correlated with the food and blackout outcomes. In Experiment 1, terminal-link durations were varied. With short terminal links (i.e., 10 s), 6 of 8 subjects showed strong preference for the 50% side. As terminal-link duration increased to 30 s, preference, regardless of direction, became less extreme. In Experiment 2, the side-key location of the 50% and 100% alternatives was reversed for 3 subjects. Preference for the 50% alternative reoccurred following the key reversal. When a 5-s separation was subsequently interposed between the initial and terminal links for both alternatives, all birds reversed to a preference for the 100% side. In general, the strong preference for the 50% side was qualitatively consistent with the expectation that the procedure enhanced the conditioned-reinforcement effectiveness of the food-associated terminal-link stimulus on the 50% side. Implications of the results for various accounts of choice of the 50% alternative are discussed.     

Effects of signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement on choice

Pigeons chose between 5-s and 15-s delay-of-reinforcement alternatives. The first key peck to satisfy the choice schedule began a delay timer, and food was delivered at the end of the interval. Key pecks during the delay interval were measured, but had no scheduled effect. In Experiment 1, signal conditions and choice schedules were varied across conditions. During unsignaled conditions, no stimulus change signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential and nondifferential signal conditions, offset of the choice stimuli and onset of a delay stimulus signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential signal conditions, different stimuli were correlated with the 5-s and 15-s delays, whereas the same stimulus appeared during both delay durations during nondifferential signal conditions. Pigeons showed similar, extreme levels of preference for the 5-s delay alternative during unsignaled and differentially signaled conditions. Preference levels were reliably lower with nondifferential signals. Experiment 2 assessed preference with two pairs of unsignaled delays in which the ratio of delays was held constant but the absolute duration was increased fourfold. No effect of absolute duration was found. The results highlight the importance of delayed primary reinforcement effects and challenge models of choice that focus solely on conditioned reinforcement.     

Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects.

Pigeons responded on concurrent chains with equal initial- and terminal-link durations. In all conditions, the terminal links of one chain ended reliably in reinforcement; the terminal links on the alternative chain ended in either food or blackout. In Experiment 1, the terminal-link stimuli were correlated with (signaled) the outcome, and the durations of the initial and terminal links were varied across conditions. Preference did not vary systematically across conditions. In Experiment 2, terminal-link durations were varied under different stimulus conditions. The initial links were variable-interval 80-s schedules. Preference for the reliable alternative was generally higher in unsignaled than in signaled conditions. Preference increased with terminal-link durations only in the unsignaled conditions. There were no consistent differences between conditions with and without a common signal for reinforcement on the two chains. In the first series of conditions in Experiment 3, a single response was required in the initial links, and the stimulus conditions during 50-s terminal links were varied. Preference for the reliable outcome approached 1.0 in unsignaled conditions and was considerably lower (below .50 for 3 of 5 subjects) in signaled conditions. In a final series of signaled conditions with relatively long terminal links, preference varied with duration of the initial links. The results extend previous findings and are discussed in terms of the delay reduction signaled by terminal-link stimuli.     

When good news leads to bad choices

Pigeons and other animals sometimes deviate from optimal choice behavior when given informative signals for delayed outcomes. For example, when pigeons are given a choice between an alternative that always leads to food after a delay and an alternative that leads to food only half of the time after a delay, preference changes dramatically depending on whether the stimuli during the delays are correlated with (signal) the outcomes or not. With signaled outcomes, pigeons show a much greater preference for the suboptimal alternative than with unsignaled outcomes. Key variables and research findings related to this phenomenon are reviewed, including the effects of durations of the choice and delay periods, probability of reinforcement, and gaps in the signal. We interpret the available evidence as reflecting a preference induced by signals for good news in a context of uncertainty. Other explanations are briefly summarized and compared.     

Testing the Δ-∑ hypothesis in the suboptimal choice task: Same delta with different probabilities of reinforcement

In a concurrent-chain procedure, pigeons choose between 2 initial-link stimuli; one is followed by terminal link stimuli that signal reliably whether food will be delivered after a delay; the other is followed by terminal link stimuli that do not signal whether food will be delivered after the delay. Pigeons prefer the former alternative even when it yields a lower overall probability of food. Recently, we proposed the Delta-Sigma (∆-∑) hypothesis to explain the effect: Preference depends on the difference (∆) between the reinforcement probabilities associated with the terminal link stimuli, and the overall probability of reinforcement (∑) associated with the alternative. The hypothesis predicts that, for constant ∑, animals should prefer alternatives with greater ∆ values regardless of the specific probabilities of reinforcement that determine ∆. In 2 experiments, we tested this prediction by comparing a ∆ = .5 against a ∆ = 0 alternative, with the former obtained with different pairs of reinforcement probabilities across conditions. The results supported the hypothesis when the 2 probabilities defining ∆ were significantly greater than 0, but not when one of them was close to 0. The results challenge our theoretical accounts of suboptimal choice and the variables considered to determine pigeons’ preference.     

Sub-Optimal Choice by Pigeons: Failure to Support The Allais Paradox

Pigeons show a preference for an alternative that provides them with discriminative stimuli (sometimes a stimulus that predicts reinforcement and at other times a stimulus that predicts the absence of reinforcement) over an alternative that provides them with nondiscriminative stimuli, even if the nondiscriminative stimulus alternative is associated with 2.5 times as much reinforcement (Stagner & Zentall, 2010). In Experiment 1 we found that the delay to reinforcement associated with the nondiscriminative stimuli could be reduced by almost one half before the pigeons were indifferent between the two alternatives. In Experiment 2 we tested the hypothesis that the preference for the discriminative stimulus alternative resulted from the fact that, like humans, the pigeons were attracted by the stimulus that consistently predicted reinforcement (the Allais paradox). When the probability of reinforcement associated with the discriminative stimulus that predicted reinforcement was reduced from 100% to 80% the pigeons still showed a strong preference for the discriminative stimulus alternative. Thus, under these conditions, the Allais paradox cannot account for the sub-optimal choice behavior shown by pigeons. Instead we propose that sub-optimal choice results from positive contrast between the low expectation of reinforcement associated with the discriminative stimulus alternative and the much higher obtained reinforcement when the stimulus associated with reinforcement appears. We propose that similar processes can account for sub-optimal gambling behavior by humans.     

Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers.

In a discrete-trials procedure with pigeons, a response on a green key led to a 4-s delay (during which green houselights were lit) and then a reinforcer might or might not be delivered. A response on a red key led to a delay of adjustable duration (during which red houselights were lit) and then a certain reinforcer. The delay was adjusted so as to estimate an indifference point--a duration for which the two alternatives were equally preferred. Once the green key was chosen, a subject had to continue to respond on the green key until a reinforcer was delivered. Each response on the green key, plus the 4-s delay that followed every response, was called one "link" of the green-key schedule. Subjects showed much greater preference for the green key when the number of links before reinforcement was variable (averaging four) than when it was fixed (always exactly four). These findings are consistent with the view that probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers delivered after variable delays. When successive links were separated by 4-s or 8-s "interlink intervals" with white houselights, preference for the probabilistic alternative decreased somewhat for 2 subjects but was unaffected for the other 2 subjects. When the interlink intervals had the same green houselights that were present during the 4-s delays, preference for the green key decreased substantially for all subjects. These results provided mixed support for the view that preference for a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the duration of conditioned reinforcers that precede the delivery of food.     

Preference for unreliable reinforcement in children with mental retardation: the role of conditioned reinforcement

We examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement on children's choice between reliable (100%) and unreliable (50%) reinforcement under various stimulus conditions in a concurrent-chains procedure. The study was conducted across three experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted under conditions similar to basic laboratory work and consisted of participants selecting from one of two black boxes (placed on a table) that were correlated with different reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 3, we assessed a participant's preference for unreliable reinforcement during conditions in which the target responses were aggression and mands. Results of the three experiments showed that the participants preferred unreliable reinforcement under certain conditions. Findings are discussed regarding the role of specific stimuli (i.e., items correlated with a reinforcement schedule, adult reactions) as conditioned reinforcers and how they may influence children's preference for a response (e.g., aggression, self-injury) that produces reinforcement on a leaner schedule than a socially desirable response (e.g., mands).     

Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting-delay procedure.

A discrete-trials adjusting-delay procedure was used to investigate the conditions under which pigeons might show a preference for partial reinforcement over 100% reinforcement, an effect reported in a number of previous experiments. A peck on a red key always led to a delay with red houselights and then food. In each condition, the duration of the red-houselight delay was adjusted to estimate an indifference point. In 100% reinforcement conditions, a peck on a green key always led to a delay with green houselights and then food. In partial-reinforcement conditions, a peck on the green key led either to the green houselights and food or to white houselights and no food. In some phases of the experiment, statistically significant preference for partial reinforcement over 100% reinforcement was found, but this effect was observed in only about half of the pigeons. The effect was largely eliminated when variability in the delay stimulus colors was equated for 50% reinforcement conditions and 100% reinforcement conditions. Idiosyncratic preferences for certain colors or for stimulus variability may be at least partially responsible for the effect.     

Conditioned reinforcement and choice with delayed and uncertain primary reinforcers.

In an adjusting-delay choice procedure, pigeons could peck on either a red key or a green key. A peck on the red key always led to a delay associated with red houselights and then food. The delay was adjusted over trials to estimate an indifference point--a delay at which the two keys were chosen about equally often. In some conditions, a peck on the green key led to food on all trials after delays of either 10 s or 30 s, and green houselights were lit during the delays. In other conditions, food was presented on only half of the green-key trials. If the green houselights continued to occur on both reinforcement and nonreinforcement trials, preference for the green key always decreased. Preference for the green key also decreased if half of the trials had 30-s houselights followed by food and the other half had no green houselights and no food. However, preference for the green key actually increased if half of the trials had 10-s green houselights followed by food and the other half had no green houselights followed by no food. The latter condition therefore demonstrated a case in which preference for an alternative increased when food was removed from half of the trials. The results suggest that the red and green houselights served as conditioned reinforcers. A hyperbolic decay model (Mazur, 1989) provided good predictions for all conditions by assuming that the strength of a conditioned reinforcer is inversely related to the total time spent in its presence before food is delivered.     

Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior

In two experiments the conditioned reinforcing and delayed discriminative stimulus functions of stimuli that signal delays to reinforcement were studied. Pigeons' pecks to a center key produced delayed-matching-to-sample trials according to a variable-interval 60-s (or 30-s in 1 pigeon) schedule (Experiment 1) or a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule (Experiment 2). The trials consisted of a 2-s illumination of one of two sample key colors followed by delays ranging across phases from 0.1 to 27.0 s followed in turn by the presentation of matching and nonmatching comparison stimuli on the side keys. Pecks to the key color that matched the sample were reinforced with 4-s access to grain. Under some conditions of Experiment 1, pecks to nonmatching comparison stimuli produced a 4-s blackout and the start of the next interval. Under other conditions of Experiment 1 and each condition of Experiment 2, pecks to nonmatching stimuli had no effect and trials ended only when pigeons pecked the other, matching stimulus and received food. The functions relating pretrial response rates to delays differed markedly from those relating matching-to-sample accuracy to delays. Specifically, response rates remained relatively high until the longest delays (15.0 to 27.0 s) were arranged, at which point they fell to low levels. Matching accuracy was high at short delays, but fell to chance at delays between 3.0 and 9.0 s. In Experiment 2, both matching accuracy and response rates remained high over a wider range of delays in the variable-interval 120-s component relative to the variable-interval 20-s component. The difference in matching accuracy between the components was not due to an increased tendency in the variable-interval 20-s component toward proactive interference following short intervals. Thus, under these experimental conditions the conditioned reinforcing and the delayed discriminative functions of the sample stimulus depended on the same variables (delay and variable-interval value), but were nevertheless dissociated.     

Choice and delay of reinforcement: Effects of terminal-link stimulus and response conditions

In two experiments, pigeons were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules in which a single initial-link variable-interval schedule led to access to terminal links composed of fixed-interval or fixed-delay schedules. In Experiment 1, an 8-s (or 16-s) delay to reinforcement was associated with the standard key, while reinforcer delay values associated with the experimental key were varied from 4 to 32 s. The results of Experiment 1 showed undermatching of response ratios to delay ratios with terminal-link fixed-delay schedules, whereas in some pigeons matching or overmatching was evident with the fixed-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, one pair of reinforcer delay values, either 8 versus 16 s or 16 versus 32 s, was used. In the first condition of Experiment 2, different delays were associated with different keylight stimuli (cued condition). In the second condition, different terminal-link delays were associated with the same stimulus, either a blackout (uncued-blackout condition) or a white key (uncued-white condition). To examine the role of responses emitted during delays, the keys were retracted during a delay (key-absent condition) in the third condition and responses were required by a fixed-interval schedule in the fourth condition. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the choice proportions for the shorter delay were more extreme in the cued condition than in the uncued-blackout condition, and that the response requirement imposed by the fixed-interval schedules did not affect choice of the shorter delay, nor did the key-absent and key-present conditions. These results indicate that the keylight-stimulus conditions affected preference for the shorter of two delays and that the findings obtained in Experiment 1 depended mainly on the keylight-stimulus conditions of the terminal links (i.e., the conditioned reinforcing value of the terminal-link stimuli).     

The Δ–∑ hypothesis: How contrast and reinforcement rate combine to generate suboptimal choice

When given a choice between two alternatives, each offering food after the same delay with different but signaled probabilities, pigeons often prefer the low probability alternative. This preference is surprising because pigeons fail to maximize the rate of food intake; they exhibit a suboptimal preference. We advance a new explanation, the Δ–∑ hypothesis, in which the difference in probability of reinforcement within terminal links (Δ) and the overall reinforcement probability rate of each alternative (∑) are the key variables responsible for such suboptimal preference. We tested the Δ–∑ hypothesis in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the Δs while maintaining constant all other parameters of the task, in particular the ∑s. We predicted a preference for the alternative with the larger Δ. In Experiment 2, we examined the effect of the overall reinforcement probabilities, the ∑s, while maintaining constant all other parameters of the task, in particular the Δs. We predicted a preference for the larger ∑. The results of both experiments support the Δ–∑ hypothesis.     

Sub-optimal choice in pigeons does not depend on avoidance of the stimulus associated with the absence of reinforcement

When pigeons are given a choice between two alternatives, one leading to a stimulus 20% of the time that always signals reinforcement (S+) or another stimulus 80% of the time that signals no reinforcement (S−), and the other alternative leading to one of two stimuli each signaling reinforcement 50% of the time, they show a strong preference for the first alternative. This preference occurs in spite of the fact that, overall, the second alternative provides two and a half times more reinforcement than the first. In the present experiment we tested the hypothesis that the S− is a less effective conditioned inhibitor because as soon as it is recognized, the pigeon may orient away from it, whereas it does not orient away from the other signals. To test this hypothesis, for Group HLS−, we made the S− more salient and less avoidable by using a ceiling mounted houselight. To control for a possible aversion to the houselight we included Group HLS+, a group for which the houselight served as the S+. And the preferences of both groups were compared to those of a standard no houselight group. The pigeons in all three groups showed a strong preference for the lower probability of reinforcement alternative. Thus, reduced peripheral orienting during presentation of the S− stimulus was not likely responsible for pigeons’ sub-optimal choice.     

A test of the reinforcing properties of stimuli correlated with nonreinforcement

The information hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement predicts that a stimulus that “reduces uncertainty” about the outcome of a trial will acquire reinforcing properties, even when the stimulus reliably predicts nonreinforcement. Four pigeons' key pecks produced one of two 5-sec stimuli with 0.50 probability according to a discriminated variable-interval schedule. One stimulus was followed by reinforcement; a second stimulus was followed by blackout. To the same extent, therefore, both stimuli reduced uncertainty about the possibility that food would arrive at the termination of the schedule interval. When a second key in the chamber was lighted, each peck on it could produce the stimulus preceding reinforcement, the stimulus preceding nonreinforcement, a novel stimulus, or no stimulus, across separate conditions. The stimulus preceding food maintained responding at substantial levels on the second, stimulus-producing, key. Such responding was not maintained by other stimuli. These data, replicated when the stimuli were reversed on the variable-interval schedule, do not support the prediction that uncertainty-reducing stimuli are necessarily conditioned reinforcers.     

Context effects on choice.

Four pigeons responded on a concurrent-chains schedule in four experiments that examined whether the effectiveness of a stimulus as a conditioned reinforcer is best described by a global approach, as measured by the average interreinforcement interval, or by a local contextual approach, as measured by the onset of the stimulus preceding the conditioned reinforcer. The interreinforcement interval was manipulated by the inclusion of an intertrial interval, which increased the overall time to reinforcement but did not change the local contingencies on a given trial A global analysis predicted choice for the richer alternative to decrease with the inclusion of an intertrial interval, whereas a local analysis predicted no change in preference. Experiment 1 examined sensitivity to intertrial intervals when each was signaled by the same houselight that operated throughout the session. In Experiment 2, the intertrial interval always was signaled by the stimulus correlated with the richer terminal link. In Experiment 3, the intertrial interval was signaled by the keylights correlated with the initial links and two novel houselights. Experiment 4 provided free food pseudorandomly during the intertrial interval. In all experiments, subjects' preferences were consistent with a local analysis of choice in concurrent chains. These results are discussed in terms of delay-reduction theory, which traditionally has failed to distinguish global and local contexts.     

Matching and conditioned reinforcement rate

Attempts to examine the effects of variations in relative conditioned reinforcement rate on choice have been confounded by changes in rates of primary reinforcement or changes in the value of the conditioned reinforcer. To avoid these problems, this experiment used concurrent observing responses to examine sensitivity of choice to relative conditioned reinforcement rate. In the absence of observing responses, unsignaled periods of food delivery on a variable-interval 90-s schedule alternated with extinction on a center key (i.e., a mixed schedule was in effect). Two concurrently available observing responses produced 15-s access to a stimulus differentially associated with the schedule of food delivery (S+). The relative rate of S+ deliveries arranged by independent variable-interval schedules for the two observing responses varied across conditions. The relation between the ratio of observing responses and the ratio of S+ deliveries was well described by the generalized matching law, despite the absence of changes in the rate of food delivery. In addition, the value of the S+ deliveries likely remained constant across conditions because the ratio of S+ to mixed schedule food deliveries remained constant. Assuming that S+ deliveries serve as conditioned reinforcers, these findings are consistent with the functional similarity between primary and conditioned reinforcers suggested by general choice theories based on the concatenated matching law (e.g., contextual choice and hyperbolic value-added models). These findings are inconsistent with delay reduction theory, which has no terms for the effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement in the absence of changes in rate of primary reinforcement.     

Frequency and value both matter in the suboptimal choice procedure

Pigeons chose between two options on a concurrent‐chains task with a single response requirement in the initial link. The suboptimal option ended with food 20% of the time whereas the optimal option ended with food 80% of the time. During a Sig‐Both condition, terminal‐link stimuli on both options signaled whether or not food would occur. During a Sig‐Sub condition, terminal‐link stimuli on the suboptimal option provided differential signals, but stimuli on the optimal option did not differentially signal the food and no food outcomes. Initial‐link choices revealed a clear preference for the optimal option in the Sig‐Both condition, but preference shifted toward suboptimality in the Sig‐Sub condition. These findings show that pigeon suboptimal choice is not singularly driven by signal value, as has been suggested, but also by reinforcer frequency.     

Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: effects of delay and conditioned reinforcers.

Two experiments measured pigeons' choices between probabilistic reinforcers and certain but delayed reinforcers. In Experiment 1, a peck on a red key led to a 5-s delay and then a possible reinforcer (with a probability of .2). A peck on a green key led to a certain reinforcer after an adjusting delay. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In all conditions, red houselights were present during the 5-s delay on reinforced trials with the probabilistic alternative, but the houselight colors on nonreinforced trials differed across conditions. Subjects showed a stronger preference for the probabilistic alternative when the houselights were a different color (white or blue) during the delay on nonreinforced trials than when they were red on both reinforced and nonreinforced trials. These results supported the hypothesis that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the cumulative time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. Experiment 2 tested some quantitative versions of this hypothesis by varying the delay for the probabilistic alternative (either 0 s or 2 s) and the probability of reinforcement (from .1 to 1.0). The results were best described by an equation that took into account both the cumulative durations of stimuli associated with the probabilistic reinforcer and the variability in these durations from one reinforcer to the next.