ABSTRACT
Under certain conditions, multiple nonhuman species have been observed engaging in choice behavior that resulted in less food earned when compared to the amount of food that was available to be earned over the course of a session. This phenomenon is particularly strong in pigeons, but has also been observed in rats and nonhuman primates. Conversely, human participants have demonstrated a propensity to choose more optimally. However, human participants do not exclusively choose the alternative associated with more reinforcement. Framing a task in a real-world narrative has been effective in improving problem-solving on other tasks such as the Wason Four-Card problem. The present study gave human participants a choice task with either abstract stimuli or with a real-world narrative. In addition, participants were given terminal stimuli that were either predictive or unpredictive of reinforcement. Thus, participants were assigned to one of four conditions: Abstract Predictive, Abstract Unpredictive, Narrative Predictive, or Narrative Unpredictive. In contrast to the improved performance on the Wason Four-Card task, the current study found no evidence that the addition of a real-world narrative improved optimal choice performance. Rather, it may have interfered with optimal choice selection in that participants who received the narrative and unpredictive terminal stimuli were at chance performance at the end of the experimental session. Conversely, participants in the Abstract Unpredictive, Abstract Predictive, and Narrative Predictive conditions all demonstrated a preference for the optimal alternative. Possible mechanisms for these findings and future directions are discussed.
ABSTRACT
Macphail (1985) proposed that "intelligence" should not vary across vertebrate species when contextual variables are accounted for. Focusing on research involving choice behavior, the propensity for choosing an option that produces stimuli that predict the presence or absence of reinforcement but that also results in less food over time can be examined. This choice preference has been found multiple times in pigeons (Stagner and Zentall, 2010; Zentall and Stagner, 2011; Laude et al., 2014) and has been likened to gambling behavior demonstrated by humans (Zentall, 2014, 2016). The present experiments used a similarly structured task to examine adult human preferences for reinforcement predictors and compared findings to choice behavior demonstrated by children (Lalli et al., 2000), monkeys (Smith et al., 2017; Smith and Beran, 2020), dogs (Jackson et al., 2020), rats (Chow et al., 2017; Cunningham and Shahan, 2019; Jackson et al., 2020), and pigeons (Roper and Zentall, 1999; Stagner and Zentall, 2010). In Experiment 1, adult human participants showed no preference for reinforcement predictors. Results from Experiment 2 suggest that not only were reinforcement predictors not preferred, but that perhaps reinforcement predictors had no effect at all on choice behavior. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 were further assessed using a generalized matching equation, the findings from which support that adult human choice behavior in the present research was largely determined by reinforcement history. Overall, the present results obtained from human adult participants are different than those found from pigeons in particular, suggesting that further examination of Macphail (1985) hypothesis is warranted.
