Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Optimal Foraging00:48

Optimal Foraging

14.1K
How animals obtain and eat their food is called foraging behavior. Foraging can include searching for plants and hunting for prey and depends on the species and environment.
14.1K
Frustration and Conflict: Avoidance-Avoidance, Double-Approach Avoidance01:14

Frustration and Conflict: Avoidance-Avoidance, Double-Approach Avoidance

761
Avoidance-avoidance conflict refers to a psychological situation where a person must choose between two or more unpleasant alternatives. These conflicts are particularly stressful because neither option is desirable. This dilemma is often expressed in sayings like "caught between a rock and a hard place" or "between the devil and the deep blue sea." For instance, individuals who fear dental procedures may find themselves torn between enduring a painful toothache or facing the...
761
Decision Making: P-value Method01:09

Decision Making: P-value Method

7.1K
The process of hypothesis testing based on the P-value method includes calculating the P- value using the sample data and interpreting it.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim  is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses:  a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
7.1K
The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic01:25

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

7.8K
In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the...
7.8K
Decision Making01:20

Decision Making

1.2K
Decision-making is a fundamental cognitive process that involves evaluating alternatives and selecting among them. This process can range from simple choices, such as deciding what to wear, to complex decisions, like choosing a major in college or a career path. The complexity of the decision often dictates the approach we use, which can be broadly categorized into two types: automatic and controlled decision-making.
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
1.2K
The Availability Heuristic01:08

The Availability Heuristic

7.2K
A heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, and the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):
7.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Appetitive Pavlovian conditioning in two inclusive kindergarten classrooms.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same author

Contingency discrimination training and resurgence: Effects of reduced extinction session durations.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2025
Same author

Evaluating contributions of progressive ratio analysis to economic metrics of demand.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2025
Same author

Further assessment of a model of changeover behavior: Implications for the matching law.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2025
Same author

Resurgence of negatively reinforced behavior in rats.

Behavioural processes·2025
Same author

The extinction burst: Effects of alternative reinforcement magnitude.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2025
Same journal

The Genoeconomics of Impulsive Intertemporal Choice: A Critical Review.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Shaping the extinction burst: Increasing its probability and preventing its emergence across topographies.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Evaluating the combined effects of effort and probability on monetary discounting.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

An improved translational approach to studying persistence-strengthening effects of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Interactions between the effects of food and water motivating operations on concurrent food- and water-reinforced responding in mice.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Odor-visual and visual-visual matching to sample with dogs.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

9.3K

How suboptimal is suboptimal choice?

Jay E Hinnenkamp1, Timothy A Shahan1, Gregory J Madden1

  • 1Utah State University.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
|January 20, 2017
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Pigeons consistently prefer a gambling-like choice, even when it

Keywords:
pigeonssuboptimal choiceunit price

More Related Videos

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task
07:47

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task

Published on: January 9, 2016

16.1K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

1.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

9.3K
Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task
07:47

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task

Published on: January 9, 2016

16.1K
The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

1.2K

Area of Science:

  • Behavioral economics
  • Animal behavior

Background:

  • The suboptimal-choice procedure in pigeons is a model for human gambling behavior.
  • Previous research suggested this choice might reflect economic maximization, posing a threat to its validity as a gambling analog.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate two potential threats to the validity of the suboptimal-choice procedure as a model of gambling.
  • To determine if pigeons' choices are influenced by unit price or attribution errors.

Main Methods:

  • Pigeons were presented with a choice between a certain (optimal) and a probabilistic (suboptimal) food reward.
  • Experiments manipulated the unit price (pecks per pellet) of food delivery for each alternative.
  • Experiment 3 altered trial sequences to minimize attribution errors of no-food trials.

Main Results:

  • Pigeons consistently preferred the suboptimal, probabilistic alternative, irrespective of the unit price of food.
  • Preference for the suboptimal alternative persisted even when the unit price ratio closely matched the expected value ratio.
  • Eliminating potential attribution errors did not alter pigeons' preference for the suboptimal choice.

Conclusions:

  • The suboptimal-choice procedure remains a valid analog for gambling behavior in pigeons.
  • Pigeons' preference for the suboptimal alternative is not explained by economic maximization or simple attribution errors.
  • These findings challenge explanations of suboptimal choice based solely on economic principles.