Search for: All records

Abstract Humans and other animals are capable of reasoning. However, there are overwhelming examples of errors or anomalies in reasoning. In two experiments, we studied if rats, like humans, estimate the conjunction of two events as more likely than each event independently, a phenomenon that has been called conjunction fallacy. In both experiments, rats learned through food reinforcement to press a lever under some cue conditions but not others. Sound B was rewarded whereas Sound A was not. However, when B was presented with the visual cue Y was not rewarded, whereas AX was rewarded (i.e., A-, AX+, B+, BY-). Both visual cues were presented in the same bulb. After training, rats received test sessions in which A and B were presented with the bulb explicitly off or occluded by a metal piece. Thus, on the occluded condition, it was ambiguous whether the trials were of the elements alone (A or B) or of the compounds (AX or BY). Rats responded on the occluded condition as if the compound cues were most likely present. The second experiment investigated if this error in probability estimation in Experiment 1, could be due to a conjunction fallacy, and if this could be attenuated by increasing the ratio of element/compound trials from the original 50-50 to 70-30 and 90-10. Only the 90-10 condition (where 90% of the training trials were of just A or just B) did not show a conjunction fallacy, though it emerged in all groups with additional training. These findings open new avenues for exploring the mechanisms behind the conjunction fallacy effect. 

Abstract The present study evaluated the role of inhibition in paradoxical choice in pigeons. In a paradoxical choice procedure, pigeons receive a choice between two alternatives. Choosing the “suboptimal” alternative is followed 20% of the time by one cue (the S+) that is always reinforced, and 80% of the time by another cue (S-) that is never reinforced. Thus, this alternative leads to an overall reinforcement rate of 20%. Choosing the “optimal” alternative, however, is followed by one of two cues (S3 or S4), each reinforced 50% of the time. Thus, this alternative leads to an overall reinforcement rate of 50%. González and Blaisdell (2021) reported that development of paradoxical choice was positively correlated to the development of inhibition to the S- (signal that no food will be delivered on that trial) post-choice stimulus. The current experiment tested the hypothesis that inhibition to a post-choice stimulus is causally related to suboptimal preference. Following acquisition of suboptimal preference, pigeons received two manipulations: in one condition one of the cues in the optimal alternative (S4) was extinguished and, in another condition, the S- cue was partially reinforced. When tested on the choice task afterward, both manipulations resulted in a decrement in suboptimal preference. This result is paradoxical given that both manipulations made the suboptimal alternative the richer option. We discuss the implications of our results, arguing that inhibition of a post-choice cue increases attraction to or value of that choice.