An Animal Model of Human Gambling

Human gambling generally involves taking a risk on a low probability high outcome alternative over the more economically optimal high probability low outcome alternative (not gambling). Surprisingly, although optimal foraging theory suggests that animals should be sensitive to the overall probabilit...

Full description

Autores:: Zentall, Thomas R.

Tipo de recurso:: Article of journal

Fecha de publicación:: 2016

Institución:: Universidad de San Buenaventura

Repositorio:: Repositorio USB

Idioma:: eng

id	SANBUENAV2_17f969797ae54bf67c2c7cb06315a056
oai_identifier_str	oai:bibliotecadigital.usb.edu.co:10819/25776
network_acronym_str	SANBUENAV2
network_name_str	Repositorio USB
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
dc.title.translated.spa.fl_str_mv	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
title	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
spellingShingle	An Animal Model of Human Gambling suboptimal choice gambling pigeons suboptimal choice
title_short	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
title_full	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
title_fullStr	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
title_full_unstemmed	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
title_sort	An Animal Model of Human Gambling
dc.creator.fl_str_mv	Zentall, Thomas R.
dc.contributor.author.eng.fl_str_mv	Zentall, Thomas R.
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv	suboptimal choice gambling pigeons suboptimal choice
topic	suboptimal choice gambling pigeons suboptimal choice
description	Human gambling generally involves taking a risk on a low probability high outcome alternative over the more economically optimal high probability low outcome alternative (not gambling). Surprisingly, although optimal foraging theory suggests that animals should be sensitive to the overall probability of reinforcement, the results of many experiments suggest otherwise. For example, they do not prefer an alternative that 100% of the time provides them with a stimulus that always predicts reinforcement over an alternative that provides them with a stimulus that predicts reinforcement 50% of the time. This line of research leads to the conclusion that preference depends on the predictive value of the stimulus that follows and surprisingly, not on its frequency. A similar mechanism likely accounts for the suboptimal choice that humans have to engage in commercial gambling.
publishDate	2016
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2016-07-01T00:00:00Z 2025-07-31T16:11:48Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2016-07-01T00:00:00Z 2025-07-31T16:11:48Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2016-07-01
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.eng.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.coarversion.eng.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.eng.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.driver.eng.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv	Journal article
dc.type.version.eng.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str	publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	10.21500/20112084.2284
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv	2011-7922
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv	2011-2084
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://hdl.handle.net/10819/25776
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.2284
identifier_str_mv	10.21500/20112084.2284 2011-7922 2011-2084
url	https://hdl.handle.net/10819/25776 https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.2284
dc.language.iso.eng.fl_str_mv	eng
language	eng
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv	https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/2367 https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3040 https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3041 https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3042 https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3043
dc.relation.citationedition.eng.fl_str_mv	Núm. 2 , Año 2016 : Special Issue of Comparative Psychology
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv	112
dc.relation.citationissue.eng.fl_str_mv	2
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv	96
dc.relation.citationvolume.eng.fl_str_mv	9
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.eng.fl_str_mv	International Journal of Psychological Research
dc.relation.references.eng.fl_str_mv	References Allais, M., 1953. Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école Américaine, Econometrica, 21, 503-546. Belke, T.W., Spetch, M. L., 1994. Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 353-366. Breen, R.B., Zuckerman, M., 1999. 'Chasing' in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality & Individual Differences, 27, 1097-1111. Brunborg, G.S., Johnsen, B.J., Pallesen, S., Molde, H., Mentzoni, R.A., & Myrseth, H., 2010. The relationship between aversive conditioning and risk-avoidance in gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 545-559. Crockford. D.N., Goodyear. B., Edwards. J., Quickfall. J., el-Guebaly. N., 2005. Cue-induced brain activity in pathological gamblers. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 787–795. Dinsmoor, J.A., 1983. Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Science, 6, 693–728. Dinsmoor, J.A., 1985. The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 365-381. DSM-IV-TR American Psychiatric Association, (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Dunn, R., & Spetch, M. L. (1990). Choice with uncertain outcomes: Conditioned reinforcement effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 201–218. Fantino, E., 1967. Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 35-43. Fantino, E., 1969. Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730. Fantino, E., Abarca, N., 1985. Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Science, 8, 315–330. Fantino, E., Case, D.A. 1983. Human observing: Maintained by stimuli correlated with reinforcement but not extinction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 193–210. Fantino, E., Dunn, R., Meck, W., 1979. Percentage reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 335-340. Fantino, E., Preston, R. A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay reduction: Current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159–169. Fantino, E., Silberberg, A., 2010. Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 157-170. Field, M., & Cox, W. M., 2008. Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: A review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 97, 1–20. Franken I. H. A., Stam C., Hendriks V. M., van den Brink, W., 2003. Neuropsychological evidence for abnormal cognitive processing of drug cues in heroin dependence. Psychopharmacology, 170, 205–212. Gipson, C. D., Alessandri, J.D., Miller, H.C., Zentall, T.R., 2009. Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 37, 289-298. Griffiths, M. (1999). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 265-283. Hearst, E., Besley, S., Farthing, G.W., 1970. Inhibition and the stimulus control of operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 373–409. Holst R. J., van den Brink W., Veltman D.J., Goudriaan A.E., 2010. Why gamblers fail to win: A review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 87–107. Hursh S.R., Fantino E., 1974 An appraisal of preference for multiple versus mixed schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 31-38. Jones G.H., Marsden C.A., Robbins T.W., 1990 Increased sensitivity to amphetamine and reward-related stimuli following social isolation in rats: possible disruption of dopamine-dependent mechanisms of the nucleus accumbens. Psychopharmacology, 3, 364-372. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. Kendall, S. B. (1974). Preference for intermittent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 463–473. Kendall, S. B. (1985). A further study of choice and percentage reinforcement. Behavioural Processes, 10, 399–413. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328. Laude, J.R., Beckmann, J.S., Daniels, C.W., Zentall, T.R., (2014). Impulsivity affects suboptimal gambling-like choice by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. Laude, J.R., Pattison, K.F., & Zentall, T.R., 2012. Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 884–891. Laude, J.R., Stagner, J.P., & Zentall, T.R. 2014. Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 40, 12-21. Lyk-Jensen, S.V., 2010. New evidence from the grey area: Danish results for at-risk gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 455-467. MacLin, O. H., Dixon, M. R., Daugherty, D., & Small, S. L. (2007). Using a computer simulation of three slot gambling machines to investigate a gambler’s preference among varying densities of near-miss alternatives. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 237-241. Mazur, J.E. 1996. Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting delay procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 63-73. McDevitt, M. A., Dunn, R. M., Spetch, M. L., & Ludvig, E. A. (2016). When good news leads to bad choices. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105, 23-40. McDevitt, M. A., Spetch, M. L., & Dunn, R. (1997). Contiguity and conditioned reinforcement in probabilistic choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 317–327. Michalczuk, R., Bowden-Jones, H., Verdejo-Garcia, A. Clark, L., 2011. Impulsivity and cognitive distortions in pathological gamblers attending the UK National Problem Gambling Clinic: a preliminary report. Psychological Medicine, 41, 2625-2635. Molet, M., Miller, H.C., Laude, J.R., Kirk, C., Manning, B., Zentall, T.R., 2012. Decision-making by humans as assessed by a choice task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice? Learning & Behavior, 40, 439-447. Nower, L. & Blaszczynski, A., 2006. Impulsivity and Pathological Gambling: A Descriptive Model. International Gambling Studies, 6, 61-75. Pattison, K. F., Laude, J. R., & Zentall, T. R. (2013). Social enrichment affects suboptimal, risky, gambling-like choice by pigeons. Animal Cognition, 16, 429-434. Perry J.L., Carroll M.E. 2008. The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse. Psychopharmacology, 200, 1-26 Potenza M.N., 2008. The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: an overview and new findings. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: B, 363, 3181-3189 Pyke, G.H., Pulliam, H. R., & Charnov, E. L. (1977). Optimal foraging: A selective review of theory and tests. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 52, 137–154. Rachlin, H, Green, L., 1972. Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22. Roberts, W. A., 1972. Short-term memory in the pigeon: Effects of repetition and spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 74-83. Roper, K.L., Zentall, T.R., 1999. Observing behavior in pigeons: The effect of reinforcement probability and response cost using a symmetrical choice procedure. Learning and Motivation, 30, 201-220. Shafir, S., Reich, T., Tsur, E., Erev, I., & Lotem, A., 2008. Perceptual accuracy and conflicting effects of certainty on risk-taking behaviour. Nature, 453, 917-921. Smith, A. P., Bailey, A. R., Chow, J. J., Beckmann, J. S., & Zentall, T. R. (submitted). Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Stimulus value predicts choice over frequencies. Smith, A. P., & Zentall, T. R. (in press). Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Choice is primarily based on the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than overall reinforcement rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. Spetch, M.L., Belke, T.W., Barnet, R.C., Dunn, R., Pierce, W.D. 1990. Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: Effects of signal condition and terminal link length. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 219-234. Spetch, M.L., Mondloch, M.V., Belke, T.W., Dunn, R., 1994. Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Animal Learning & Behavior 22, 239–251. Stairs D.J., Bardo M.T., 2009. Neurobehavioral effects of environmental enrichment and drug abuse vulnerability. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 92, 377-382 Stagner, J.P., Laude, J.R., & Zentall, T.R., 2011. Sub-optimal choice in pigeons does not depend on avoidance of the stimulus associated with the absence of reinforcement. Learning and Motivation, 42, 282-287. Stagner, J.P., Laude, J.R., Zentall, T.R., 2012. Pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli independently of the overall probability of reinforcement and of the number of presentations of the conditioned reinforcer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 38, 446–452. Stagner, J.P. Zentall, T.R., 2010. Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 17, 412-416. Steel Z., Blaszczynski A., 1998. Impulsivity, personality disorders and pathological gambling severity. Addiction, 93, 895-905. Stephens, D.W. Krebs, J.R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. Vasconcelos, M., Monteiro, T., & Kacelnik, A. (2015). Irrational choice and the value of information. Scientific Reports, 5, 13874. Worthington, A. C., 2001. Implicit Finance in Gambling Expenditures: Australian Evidence on Socioeconomic and Demographic Tax. Public Finance Review, 29, 326-342. Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. (2011a). Maladaptive choice behavior by pigeons: An animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behavior). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1203–1208. Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. (2011b). Sub-optimal choice by pigeons: Failure to support the Allais paradox. Learning and Motivation, 42, 245–254.
dc.rights.eng.fl_str_mv	International Journal of Psychological Research - 2016
dc.rights.accessrights.eng.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.eng.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.eng.fl_str_mv	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
rights_invalid_str_mv	International Journal of Psychological Research - 2016 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.eng.fl_str_mv	application/pdf application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
dc.publisher.eng.fl_str_mv	Universidad San Buenaventura - USB (Colombia)
dc.source.eng.fl_str_mv	https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/view/2284
institution	Universidad de San Buenaventura
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://bibliotecadigital.usb.edu.co/bitstreams/58a6585c-c6d2-46e3-a3c0-367de2d5b42a/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	4d201ba9dcc96281bd2af05cb5965792
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Repositorio Institucional Universidad de San Buenaventura Colombia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	bdigital@metabiblioteca.com
_version_	1851053690960478208
spelling	Zentall, Thomas R.2016-07-01T00:00:00Z2025-07-31T16:11:48Z2016-07-01T00:00:00Z2025-07-31T16:11:48Z2016-07-01Human gambling generally involves taking a risk on a low probability high outcome alternative over the more economically optimal high probability low outcome alternative (not gambling). Surprisingly, although optimal foraging theory suggests that animals should be sensitive to the overall probability of reinforcement, the results of many experiments suggest otherwise. For example, they do not prefer an alternative that 100% of the time provides them with a stimulus that always predicts reinforcement over an alternative that provides them with a stimulus that predicts reinforcement 50% of the time. This line of research leads to the conclusion that preference depends on the predictive value of the stimulus that follows and surprisingly, not on its frequency. A similar mechanism likely accounts for the suboptimal choice that humans have to engage in commercial gambling.application/pdfapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.documentapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document10.21500/20112084.22842011-79222011-2084https://hdl.handle.net/10819/25776https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.2284engUniversidad San Buenaventura - USB (Colombia)https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/2367https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3040https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3041https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3042https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/download/2284/3043Núm. 2 , Año 2016 : Special Issue of Comparative Psychology1122969International Journal of Psychological ResearchReferencesAllais, M., 1953. Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école Américaine, Econometrica, 21, 503-546.Belke, T.W., Spetch, M. L., 1994. Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 353-366.Breen, R.B., Zuckerman, M., 1999. 'Chasing' in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality & Individual Differences, 27, 1097-1111.Brunborg, G.S., Johnsen, B.J., Pallesen, S., Molde, H., Mentzoni, R.A., & Myrseth, H., 2010. The relationship between aversive conditioning and risk-avoidance in gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 545-559.Crockford. D.N., Goodyear. B., Edwards. J., Quickfall. J., el-Guebaly. N., 2005. Cue-induced brain activity in pathological gamblers. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 787–795.Dinsmoor, J.A., 1983. Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Science, 6, 693–728.Dinsmoor, J.A., 1985. The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 365-381.DSM-IV-TR American Psychiatric Association, (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Dunn, R., & Spetch, M. L. (1990). Choice with uncertain outcomes: Conditioned reinforcement effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 201–218.Fantino, E., 1967. Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 35-43.Fantino, E., 1969. Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730.Fantino, E., Abarca, N., 1985. Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Science, 8, 315–330.Fantino, E., Case, D.A. 1983. Human observing: Maintained by stimuli correlated with reinforcement but not extinction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 193–210.Fantino, E., Dunn, R., Meck, W., 1979. Percentage reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 335-340.Fantino, E., Preston, R. A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay reduction: Current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159–169.Fantino, E., Silberberg, A., 2010. Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 157-170.Field, M., & Cox, W. M., 2008. Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: A review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 97, 1–20.Franken I. H. A., Stam C., Hendriks V. M., van den Brink, W., 2003. Neuropsychological evidence for abnormal cognitive processing of drug cues in heroin dependence. Psychopharmacology, 170, 205–212.Gipson, C. D., Alessandri, J.D., Miller, H.C., Zentall, T.R., 2009. Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 37, 289-298.Griffiths, M. (1999). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 265-283.Hearst, E., Besley, S., Farthing, G.W., 1970. Inhibition and the stimulus control of operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 373–409.Holst R. J., van den Brink W., Veltman D.J., Goudriaan A.E., 2010. Why gamblers fail to win: A review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 87–107.Hursh S.R., Fantino E., 1974 An appraisal of preference for multiple versus mixed schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 31-38.Jones G.H., Marsden C.A., Robbins T.W., 1990 Increased sensitivity to amphetamine and reward-related stimuli following social isolation in rats: possible disruption of dopamine-dependent mechanisms of the nucleus accumbens. Psychopharmacology, 3, 364-372.Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.Kendall, S. B. (1974). Preference for intermittent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 463–473.Kendall, S. B. (1985). A further study of choice and percentage reinforcement. Behavioural Processes, 10, 399–413.Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.Laude, J.R., Beckmann, J.S., Daniels, C.W., Zentall, T.R., (2014). Impulsivity affects suboptimal gambling-like choice by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.Laude, J.R., Pattison, K.F., & Zentall, T.R., 2012. Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 884–891.Laude, J.R., Stagner, J.P., & Zentall, T.R. 2014. Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 40, 12-21.Lyk-Jensen, S.V., 2010. New evidence from the grey area: Danish results for at-risk gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 455-467.MacLin, O. H., Dixon, M. R., Daugherty, D., & Small, S. L. (2007). Using a computer simulation of three slot gambling machines to investigate a gambler’s preference among varying densities of near-miss alternatives. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 237-241.Mazur, J.E. 1996. Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting delay procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 63-73.McDevitt, M. A., Dunn, R. M., Spetch, M. L., & Ludvig, E. A. (2016). When good news leads to bad choices. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105, 23-40.McDevitt, M. A., Spetch, M. L., & Dunn, R. (1997). Contiguity and conditioned reinforcement in probabilistic choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 317–327.Michalczuk, R., Bowden-Jones, H., Verdejo-Garcia, A. Clark, L., 2011. Impulsivity and cognitive distortions in pathological gamblers attending the UK National Problem Gambling Clinic: a preliminary report. Psychological Medicine, 41, 2625-2635.Molet, M., Miller, H.C., Laude, J.R., Kirk, C., Manning, B., Zentall, T.R., 2012. Decision-making by humans as assessed by a choice task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice? Learning & Behavior, 40, 439-447.Nower, L. & Blaszczynski, A., 2006. Impulsivity and Pathological Gambling: A Descriptive Model. International Gambling Studies, 6, 61-75.Pattison, K. F., Laude, J. R., & Zentall, T. R. (2013). Social enrichment affects suboptimal, risky, gambling-like choice by pigeons. Animal Cognition, 16, 429-434.Perry J.L., Carroll M.E. 2008. The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse. Psychopharmacology, 200, 1-26Potenza M.N., 2008. The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: an overview and new findings. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: B, 363, 3181-3189Pyke, G.H., Pulliam, H. R., & Charnov, E. L. (1977). Optimal foraging: A selective review of theory and tests. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 52, 137–154.Rachlin, H, Green, L., 1972. Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.Roberts, W. A., 1972. Short-term memory in the pigeon: Effects of repetition and spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 74-83.Roper, K.L., Zentall, T.R., 1999. Observing behavior in pigeons: The effect of reinforcement probability and response cost using a symmetrical choice procedure. Learning and Motivation, 30, 201-220.Shafir, S., Reich, T., Tsur, E., Erev, I., & Lotem, A., 2008. Perceptual accuracy and conflicting effects of certainty on risk-taking behaviour. Nature, 453, 917-921.Smith, A. P., Bailey, A. R., Chow, J. J., Beckmann, J. S., & Zentall, T. R. (submitted). Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Stimulus value predicts choice over frequencies.Smith, A. P., & Zentall, T. R. (in press). Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Choice is primarily based on the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than overall reinforcement rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.Spetch, M.L., Belke, T.W., Barnet, R.C., Dunn, R., Pierce, W.D. 1990. Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: Effects of signal condition and terminal link length. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 219-234.Spetch, M.L., Mondloch, M.V., Belke, T.W., Dunn, R., 1994. Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Animal Learning & Behavior 22, 239–251.Stairs D.J., Bardo M.T., 2009. Neurobehavioral effects of environmental enrichment and drug abuse vulnerability. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 92, 377-382Stagner, J.P., Laude, J.R., & Zentall, T.R., 2011. Sub-optimal choice in pigeons does not depend on avoidance of the stimulus associated with the absence of reinforcement. Learning and Motivation, 42, 282-287.Stagner, J.P., Laude, J.R., Zentall, T.R., 2012. Pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli independently of the overall probability of reinforcement and of the number of presentations of the conditioned reinforcer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 38, 446–452.Stagner, J.P. Zentall, T.R., 2010. Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 17, 412-416.Steel Z., Blaszczynski A., 1998. Impulsivity, personality disorders and pathological gambling severity. Addiction, 93, 895-905.Stephens, D.W. Krebs, J.R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Vasconcelos, M., Monteiro, T., & Kacelnik, A. (2015). Irrational choice and the value of information. Scientific Reports, 5, 13874.Worthington, A. C., 2001. Implicit Finance in Gambling Expenditures: Australian Evidence on Socioeconomic and Demographic Tax. Public Finance Review, 29, 326-342.Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. (2011a). Maladaptive choice behavior by pigeons: An animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behavior). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1203–1208.Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. (2011b). Sub-optimal choice by pigeons: Failure to support the Allais paradox. Learning and Motivation, 42, 245–254.International Journal of Psychological Research - 2016info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/IJPR/article/view/2284suboptimal choicegamblingpigeonssuboptimal choiceAn Animal Model of Human GamblingAn Animal Model of Human GamblingArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml2474https://bibliotecadigital.usb.edu.co/bitstreams/58a6585c-c6d2-46e3-a3c0-367de2d5b42a/download4d201ba9dcc96281bd2af05cb5965792MD5110819/25776oai:bibliotecadigital.usb.edu.co:10819/257762025-07-31 11:11:48.929https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://bibliotecadigital.usb.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad de San Buenaventura Colombiabdigital@metabiblioteca.com

An Animal Model of Human Gambling

Publicaciones similares