Do pigeons prefer alternatives that include near-hit outcomes?

Area of Science:

• Behavioral economics
• Animal cognition
• Comparative psychology

Background:

• Humans exhibit suboptimal choice behavior in gambling-like tasks, including a preference for near-hit outcomes.
• Near-hits, where a loss is close to a win, are thought to be attractive to humans.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether pigeons exhibit a preference for alternatives involving near-hit-like trials.
• To explore the underlying mechanisms, such as the illusion of control, that might explain human versus pigeon responses to near-hits.

Main Methods:

• Four experiments were conducted using pigeons on a gambling-like task.
• Alternatives were designed to simulate near-hit trials, involving changes between stimuli associated with reinforcement and non-reinforcement.
• Varying durations of conditioned reinforcers and ambiguous stimuli were employed to test pigeon preferences.

Main Results:

• Pigeons consistently avoided alternatives that presented near-hit-like trials across all four experiments.
• The duration of the conditioned reinforcer did not increase preference; longer durations led to greater avoidance.
• Ambiguous stimuli preceding reinforcement or non-reinforcement also resulted in avoidance.

Conclusions:

• Pigeons do not show a preference for near-hit-like trials and tend to avoid them.
• The human attraction to near-hits may be linked to the illusion of control, a factor not apparent in pigeons.
• This research highlights a key difference in decision-making strategies between humans and pigeons regarding risky choices.