鸽子喜欢独立于强化的总体概率和条件强化的呈现次数的判别刺激。

Jessica P Stagner, Jennifer R Laude, Thomas R Zentall
{"title":"鸽子喜欢独立于强化的总体概率和条件强化的呈现次数的判别刺激。","authors":"Jessica P Stagner,&nbsp;Jennifer R Laude,&nbsp;Thomas R Zentall","doi":"10.1037/a0030321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 the absence of reinforcement (S-) and the other alternative leading to one of two stimuli each signaling reinforcement 50% of the time, the 20% reinforcement alternative is preferred although it provides only 40% as much reinforcement. In Phase 1 of the present experiment, we tested the hypothesis that pigeons compare the S+ associated with each alternative and ignore the S- by giving them a choice between two pairs of discriminative stimuli (20% S+, 80% S- and 50% S+, 50% S-). Reinforcement theory suggests that the alternative associated with more reinforcement should be preferred but the pigeons showed indifference. In Phase 2, the pigeons were divided into two groups. For one group, the discriminative function was removed from the 50% reinforcement alternative and a strong preference for the 20% reinforcement alternative was found. For the other group, the discriminative function was removed from both alternatives and a strong preference was found for the 50% reinforcement alternative. Thus, the indifference found in Phase 1 was not due to the absence of discriminability of the differential reinforcement associated with the two alternatives (20% vs. 50% reinforcement); rather, the indifference can be attributed to the pigeons' insensitivity to the differential frequency of the two S+ and two S- stimuli. The relevance to human gambling behavior is discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1037/a0030321","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli independently of the overall probability of reinforcement and of the number of presentations of the conditioned reinforcer.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica P Stagner,&nbsp;Jennifer R Laude,&nbsp;Thomas R Zentall\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/a0030321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 the absence of reinforcement (S-) and the other alternative leading to one of two stimuli each signaling reinforcement 50% of the time, the 20% reinforcement alternative is preferred although it provides only 40% as much reinforcement. In Phase 1 of the present experiment, we tested the hypothesis that pigeons compare the S+ associated with each alternative and ignore the S- by giving them a choice between two pairs of discriminative stimuli (20% S+, 80% S- and 50% S+, 50% S-). Reinforcement theory suggests that the alternative associated with more reinforcement should be preferred but the pigeons showed indifference. In Phase 2, the pigeons were divided into two groups. For one group, the discriminative function was removed from the 50% reinforcement alternative and a strong preference for the 20% reinforcement alternative was found. For the other group, the discriminative function was removed from both alternatives and a strong preference was found for the 50% reinforcement alternative. Thus, the indifference found in Phase 1 was not due to the absence of discriminability of the differential reinforcement associated with the two alternatives (20% vs. 50% reinforcement); rather, the indifference can be attributed to the pigeons' insensitivity to the differential frequency of the two S+ and two S- stimuli. The relevance to human gambling behavior is discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1037/a0030321\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030321\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030321","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

当鸽子在两种选择中做出选择时,一种刺激在20%的时间里总是发出强化信号(S+),另一种刺激在80%的时间里发出没有强化信号(S-),另一种选择在50%的时间里从两种刺激中选择一种,尽管它只提供了40%的强化,但20%的强化选择是首选。在本实验的第一阶段,我们通过让鸽子在两对区别性刺激(20% S+, 80% S-和50% S+, 50% S-)中选择,测试了鸽子比较与每个选项相关的S+并忽略S-的假设。强化理论表明,与更多强化相关的选择应该是首选,但鸽子表现出漠不关心。在第二阶段,鸽子被分成两组。对于一组,从50%强化选项中去除判别函数,发现对20%强化选项的强烈偏好。对于另一组,从两个选项中去除判别函数,发现对50%强化选项的强烈偏好。因此,在第一阶段中发现的差异不是由于与两种选择相关的差异强化(20% vs. 50%强化)缺乏可辨析性;相反,这种差异可以归因于鸽子对两种S+和两种S-刺激的不同频率不敏感。讨论了与人类赌博行为的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli independently of the overall probability of reinforcement and of the number of presentations of the conditioned reinforcer.

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 the absence of reinforcement (S-) and the other alternative leading to one of two stimuli each signaling reinforcement 50% of the time, the 20% reinforcement alternative is preferred although it provides only 40% as much reinforcement. In Phase 1 of the present experiment, we tested the hypothesis that pigeons compare the S+ associated with each alternative and ignore the S- by giving them a choice between two pairs of discriminative stimuli (20% S+, 80% S- and 50% S+, 50% S-). Reinforcement theory suggests that the alternative associated with more reinforcement should be preferred but the pigeons showed indifference. In Phase 2, the pigeons were divided into two groups. For one group, the discriminative function was removed from the 50% reinforcement alternative and a strong preference for the 20% reinforcement alternative was found. For the other group, the discriminative function was removed from both alternatives and a strong preference was found for the 50% reinforcement alternative. Thus, the indifference found in Phase 1 was not due to the absence of discriminability of the differential reinforcement associated with the two alternatives (20% vs. 50% reinforcement); rather, the indifference can be attributed to the pigeons' insensitivity to the differential frequency of the two S+ and two S- stimuli. The relevance to human gambling behavior is discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
23.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition publishes experimental and theoretical studies concerning all aspects of animal behavior processes.
期刊最新文献
Valence generalization across nonrecurring structures. Learned biases in the processing of outcomes: A brief review of the outcome predictability effect. Conditioned inhibition: Historical critiques and controversies in the light of recent advances. The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction. On the role of responses in Pavlovian acquisition.
×
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