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.
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,
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
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.
To give up copyright, the authors allow that, International Journal of Psychological Research, distribute the work more broadly, check for the reuse by others and take care of the necessary procedures for the registration and administration of copyright; at the same time, our editorial board represents the interests of the author and allows authors to re-use his work in various forms. In response to the above, authors transfer copyright to the journal, International Journal of Psychological Research. This transfer does not imply other rights which are not those of authorship (for example those that concern about patents). Likewise, preserves the authors rights to use the work integral or partially in lectures, books and courses, as well as make copies for educational purposes. Finally, the authors may use freely the tables and figures in its future work, wherever make explicit reference to the previous publication in International Journal of Psychological Research. The assignment of copyright includes both virtual rights and forms of the article to allow the editorial to disseminate the work in the manner which it deems appropriate.
The editorial board reserves the right of amendments deemed necessary in the application of the rules of publication.