Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:23:03.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biases and suboptimal choice by animals suggest that framing effects may be ubiquitous

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Thomas R. Zentall Open the ORCID record for Thomas R. Zentall [Opens in a new window]
Thomas R. Zentall*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA [email protected]/~zentall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Framing effects attributed to “quasi-cyclical” irrational complex human preferences are ubiquitous biases resulting from simpler mechanisms that can be found in other animals. Examples of such framing effects vary from simple learning contexts, to an analog of human gambling behavior, to the value added to a reinforcer by the effort that went into obtaining it.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e246
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boysen, S. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1995). Responses to quantity: Perceptual vs. cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 83–86.Google Scholar
Clayton, W. D., Brantley, S. M., & Zentall, T. R. (in press). Decision making under risk: Framing effects in pigeon risk preferences. Animal Cognition.Google Scholar
Clement, T. S., Feltus, J., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). “Work ethic” in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 100–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In Commons, M. L., Mazur, J. E., Nevin, J. A., & Rachlin, H. (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (Vol. 5, pp. 55–73). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff-Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 204–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, P. M., Peng, D., & Zentall, T. R. (submitted). Pavlovian processes in “distractor” effects in a self-control task by pigeons.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice, and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Sturgill, J., Bergeron, C., Ransdell, T., Colvin, T., Joshi, G., & Zentall, T. R. (2021). “What you see may not be what you get”: Reverse contingency and perceived loss aversion in pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 1015–1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zentall, T. R. (2010). Justification of effort by humans and pigeons: Cognitive dissonance or contrast? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 219–300.Google Scholar
Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. P. (2011). Maladaptive choice behavior by pigeons: An animal analog of gambling (sub-optimal human decision making behavior). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar