ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2012
Risky choice in pigeons: preference for amount variability using a token-reinforcement system.
Article in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the value of advanced information about delayed rewards.Animal cognition · 2024Article
- Space, feature, and risk sensitivity in homing pigeons (Columba livia): Broadening the conversation on the role of the avian hippocampus in memory.Learning & behavior · 2022Article
- Probing the decision-making mechanisms underlying choice between drug and nondrug rewards in rats.eLife · 2021Article
- The functional equivalence of two variants of the suboptimal choice task: choice proportion and response latency as measures of value.Animal cognition · 2021Article
- Unpredictability as a modulator of drug self-administration: Relevance for substance-use disorders.Behavioural processes · 2020Review
- Choice between variable and fixed cocaine injections in male rhesus monkeys.Psychopharmacology · 2017Article
- Substitution effects in a generalized token economy with pigeons.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2017Article
- Trends in Behavior-Analytic Gambling Research and Treatment.The Behavior analyst · 2015Article
- Random-ratio schedules produce greater demand for i.v. drug administration than fixed-ratio schedules in rhesus monkeys.Psychopharmacology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pigeons were given repeated choices between variable and fixed numbers of token reinforcers (stimulus lamps arrayed above the response keys), with each earned token exchangeable for food. The number of tokens provided by the fixed-amount option remained constant within blocks of sessions, but varied parametrically across phases, assuming values of 2, 4, 6, or 8 tokens per choice. The number of tokens provided by the variable-amount option varied between 0 and 12 tokens per choice, arranged according to an exponential or rectangular distribution. In general, the pigeons strongly preferred the variable option when the fixed option provided equal or greater numbers of tokens than the variable amount. Preference for the variable amount decreased only when the alternatives provided widely disparate amounts favoring the fixed amount. When tokens were removed from the experimental context, preference for the variable option was reduced or eliminated, suggesting that the token presentation played a key role in maintaining risk-prone choice patterns. Choice latencies varied inversely with preferences, suggesting that local analyses may provide useful ancillary measures of reinforcer value. Overall, the results indicate that systematic risk sensitivity can be attained with respect to reinforcer amount, and that tokens may be critical in the development of such preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.