Pigeons' (Columba livia) intertemporal choice in binary-choice and patch-leaving contexts.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Journal of Comparative Psychology Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1037/com0000387
Stephanie Gomes-Ng, Quinn Gray, Sarah Cowie
{"title":"Pigeons' (Columba livia) intertemporal choice in binary-choice and patch-leaving contexts.","authors":"Stephanie Gomes-Ng, Quinn Gray, Sarah Cowie","doi":"10.1037/com0000387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Typical approaches to study self-control present subjects with a simultaneous choice between a larger-later (LL) reinforcer and a smaller-sooner (SS) reinforcer. In contrast, in patch-leaving tasks, subjects choose between staying at a patch for an SS (or LL) reinforcer and leaving for an LL (or SS) reinforcer. Previous studies show that blue jays, monkeys, humans, and rats prefer the SS reinforcer in binary-choice tasks, whereas the same subjects prefer the LL reinforcer in equivalent patch-leaving tasks. The current study systematically replicated this research using pigeons. Six pigeons responded in a binary-choice task and in two patch-leaving tasks in which staying led to an LL (Patch-L) or SS (Patch-S) reinforcer. Across conditions, the SS reinforcer delay varied from 5 to 55 s; the LL reinforcer delay was always 60 s. In binary-choice conditions, subjects preferred the SS reinforcer. In Patch-L and Patch-S conditions, subjects preferred the LL and SS reinforcer, respectively, reflecting a bias to stay at the patch. This bias persisted when the stay response was more effortful and when the delays to both reinforcers were equal. This may reflect a species-specific win-stay bias and the differential consequences of staying (which led to a stimulus signaling food) versus leaving (which led to a stimulus never associated with food). Thus, we propose a conditioned-reinforcement account of intertemporal choice in patch-leaving contexts. We suggest several avenues for further investigations of the mechanisms underlying intertemporal choice in different contexts and question the economic equivalence of the operant and patch-leaving procedures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000387","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Typical approaches to study self-control present subjects with a simultaneous choice between a larger-later (LL) reinforcer and a smaller-sooner (SS) reinforcer. In contrast, in patch-leaving tasks, subjects choose between staying at a patch for an SS (or LL) reinforcer and leaving for an LL (or SS) reinforcer. Previous studies show that blue jays, monkeys, humans, and rats prefer the SS reinforcer in binary-choice tasks, whereas the same subjects prefer the LL reinforcer in equivalent patch-leaving tasks. The current study systematically replicated this research using pigeons. Six pigeons responded in a binary-choice task and in two patch-leaving tasks in which staying led to an LL (Patch-L) or SS (Patch-S) reinforcer. Across conditions, the SS reinforcer delay varied from 5 to 55 s; the LL reinforcer delay was always 60 s. In binary-choice conditions, subjects preferred the SS reinforcer. In Patch-L and Patch-S conditions, subjects preferred the LL and SS reinforcer, respectively, reflecting a bias to stay at the patch. This bias persisted when the stay response was more effortful and when the delays to both reinforcers were equal. This may reflect a species-specific win-stay bias and the differential consequences of staying (which led to a stimulus signaling food) versus leaving (which led to a stimulus never associated with food). Thus, we propose a conditioned-reinforcement account of intertemporal choice in patch-leaving contexts. We suggest several avenues for further investigations of the mechanisms underlying intertemporal choice in different contexts and question the economic equivalence of the operant and patch-leaving procedures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
鸽子(Columba livia)在二元选择和斑块离开情境中的跨时空选择。
研究自我控制的典型方法是让受试者同时在较大的较晚(LL)强化物和较小的较早(SS)强化物之间做出选择。与此相反,在离开补丁任务中,受试者会在留在补丁处获得 SS(或 LL)强化物和离开补丁处获得 LL(或 SS)强化物之间做出选择。以前的研究表明,在二元选择任务中,蓝鸦、猴子、人类和大鼠更喜欢 SS 强化物,而在同等的离开补丁任务中,同样的受试者更喜欢 LL 强化物。本研究利用鸽子系统地复制了这一研究。六只鸽子在一项二元选择任务和两项离开补丁任务中做出了反应,在这两项任务中,鸽子的停留会导致LL(补丁-L)或SS(补丁-S)强化物。在各种条件下,SS强化剂的延迟时间从5秒到55秒不等;LL强化剂的延迟时间总是60秒。在 "补丁-L "和 "补丁-S "条件下,受试者分别倾向于选择 "LL "和 "SS "强化物,这反映了受试者倾向于留在补丁处。当逗留反应更费力以及两种强化物的延迟时间相同时,这种偏向仍然存在。这可能反映了物种特有的 "赢-留 "偏向,以及留下(导致食物信号刺激)和离开(导致与食物无关的刺激)的不同后果。因此,我们提出了在斑块离开情境中跨时空选择的条件-强化解释。我们为进一步研究不同情境下的跨时空选择机制提出了几条途径,并对操作性程序和补丁离开程序的经济等价性提出了质疑。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Comparative Psychology publishes original research from a comparative perspective on the behavior, cognition, perception, and social relationships of diverse species.
期刊最新文献
Cross-modal perception of puppies and adult conspecifics in dogs (Canis familiaris). Putting the best foot forward: Limb lateralization in the Goffin's cockatoo (Cacatua goffiniana). Guatemalan beaded lizards (Helodermatidae: Heloderma charlesbogerti) navigate and follow a scent trail in maze tasks. Contrafreeloading in umbrella cockatoos (Cacatua alba): Further evaluation of the play hypothesis. Implementation of automated cognitive testing systems for socially housed rhesus (Macaca mulatta) and squirrel (Saimiri spp.) monkeys: Age differences in learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1