Advertisement

Experiments in Psychology: Current Issues in Irrational Choice Behavior

  • Takeharu IgakiEmail author
  • Paul Romanowich
  • Takayuki Sakagami
Chapter

Abstract

Psychology is the scientific study of behavior and the mind. To scientifically understand behavior and the mind, psychologists use diverse research methods such as experiments, questionnaire surveys, and interviews, among others.

References

  1. Ainslie, G., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1981). Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement. Animal Learning & Behavior, 9, 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alessi, S. M., & Petry, N. M. (2003). Pathological gambling severity is associated with impulsivity in a delay discounting procedure. Behavioural Processes, 64, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, C. B., & Carter, M. R. (2010). The power and pitfalls of experiments in development economics: Some non-random reflections. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 32, 515–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateson, M. (2010). Rational choice behavior: Definitions and evidence. In M. D. Breed & J. Moore (Eds.), Encyclopedia of animal behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 13–19). Oxford, UK: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateson, M., Healy, S. D., & Hurly, T. A. (2003). Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 270, 1271–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baum, W. M. (2002). From molecular to molar: A paradigm shift in behavior analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baum, W. M. (2004). Molar and molecular views of choice. Behavioural Processes, 66, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 146, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budescu, D. V., & Fischer, I. (2001). The same but different: An empirical investigation of the reducibility principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clay, R. A. (2010). More than one way to measure. Monitor on Psychology, 41, 52.Google Scholar
  16. Critchfield, T. S., & Kollins, S. H. (2001). Temporal discounting: Basic research and the analysis of socially important behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Dawkins, R., & Brockmann, H. J. (1980). Do digger wasps commit the Concorde fallacy? Animal Behaviour, 28, 892–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dixon, M. R., Marley, J., & Jacobs, E. A. (2003). Delay discounting by pathological gamblers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Du, W., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. The Psychological Record, 52, 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, B., & Fantino, E. (1972). The psychological distance to reward. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunn, R., & Spetch, M. L. (1990). Choice with uncertain outcomes: Conditioned reinforcement effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fantino, E. (1967). Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fantino, E. (1998a). Behavior analysis and decision making. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fantino, E. (1998b). Judgment and decision making: Behavioral approaches. The Behavior Analyst, 21, 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fantino, E., Dunn, R., & Meck, W. (1979). Percentage reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fantino, E., Preston, R. A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay-reduction: Current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fantino, E., & Romanowich, P. (2007). The effect of conditioned reinforcement rate on choice: A review. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gipson, C. D., Alessandri, J. J., Miller, H. C., & Zentall, T. R. (2009). Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 37, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glimcher, P. W., & Fehr, E. (Eds.). (2014). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grace, R. C., Berg, M. E., & Kyonka, E. G. (2006). Choice and timing in concurrent chains: Effects of initial-link duration. Behavioural Processes, 71, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Green, L., Fisher, E. B., Perlow, S., & Sherman, L. (1981). Preference reversal and self control: Choice as a function of reward amount and delay. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 1, 43–51.Google Scholar
  36. Green, L., Fristoe, N., & Myerson, J. (1994a). Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myerson, J. (1994b). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison. Psychological Science, 5, 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Green, L., & Kagel, J. H. (Eds.). (1987). Advances in behavioral economics (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  39. Green, L., Myerson, J., Lichtman, D., Rosen, S., & Fry, A. (1996). Temporal discounting in choice between delayed rewards: The role of age and income. Psychology and Aging, 11, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Green, L., Myerson, J., & McFadden, E. (1997). Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward. Memory & cognition, 25, 715–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hackenberg, T. D. (2009). Token reinforcement: A review and analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hardman, D. (2009). Judgment and decision making: Psychological perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Herrnstein, R. J. (1964). Aperiodicity as a factor in choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Herrnstein, R. J., & Vaughan, W. (1980). Melioration and behavioral allocation. In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.), Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior (pp. 143–176). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Iversen, I. H. (2013). Single-case research methods: An overview. In G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA handbook of behavior analysis (Vol. 1, pp. 3–32)., Methods and principles Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  50. Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology today, 5, 43–46.Google Scholar
  51. Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kazdin, A. E. (2010). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kendall, S. B. (1974). Preference for intermittent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kennedy, C. H. (1992). Trends in the measurement of social validity. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kudadjie-Gyamfi, E., & Rachlin, H. (1996). Temporal patterning in choice among delayed outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Laude, J. R., Beckmann, J. S., Daniels, C. W., & Zentall, T. R. (2014a). Impulsivity affects suboptimal gambling-like choice by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 2–11.Google Scholar
  59. Laude, J. R., Stagner, J. P., & Zentall, T. R. (2014b). Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 12–21.Google Scholar
  60. Lea, S. E. G. (1994). Rationality: The Formalist View. In H. Brandstätter & W. Güth (Eds.), Essays on Economic Psychology (pp. 71–89). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Leung, J. P. (1989). Psychological distance to reward: A human replication. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Leung, J. P. (1993). Psychological distance to reward: Segmentation of aperiodic schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Leung, J. P., & Winton, A. S. (1985). Preference for unsegmented interreinforcement intervals in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Levine, D. K. (2012). Is behavioral economics doomed? The ordinary versus the extraordinary. Cambridge, England: Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Madden, G. J., Begotka, A. M., Raiff, B. R., & Kastern, L. L. (2003). Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mazur, J. E. (1981). Optimization theory fails to predict performance of pigeons in a two-response situation. Science, 214, 823–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 55–73)., The effect of delay and intervening events on reinforcement value Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Mazur, J. E. (1989). Theories of probabilistic reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mazur, H. E. (2016). Learning & behavior (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mazur, J. E., & Biondi, D. R. (2009). Delay-amount tradeoffs in choices by pigeons and rats: Hyperbolic versus exponential discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mazur, J. E., & Fantino, E. (2014). Choice. In F. K. McSweeney & E. S. Murphy (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning (pp. 195–220). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306, 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. McKerchar, T. L., Green, L., Myerson, J., Pickford, T. S., Hill, J. C., & Stout, S. C. (2009). A comparison of four models of delay discounting in humans. Behavioural Processes, 81, 256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Molet, M., Miller, H. C., Laude, J. R., Kirk, C., Manning, B., & Zentall, T. R. (2012). Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: Do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice? Learning & Behavior, 40, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Odum, A. L. (2011). Delay discounting: I’m ak, you’re ak. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Odum, A. L., & Rainaud, C. P. (2003). Discounting of delayed hypothetical money, alcohol, and food. Behavioural Processes, 64, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ostaszewski, P., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (1998). Effects of inflation on the subjective value of delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (G. V. Anrep, Trans. & Ed.). London, England: Oxford University Press (Original work published 1927).Google Scholar
  81. Petry, N. M. (2001). Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsiveness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Petry, N. M., & Casarella, T. (1999). Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 56, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pisklak, J. M., McDevitt, M. A., Dunn, R. M., & Spetch, M. L. (2015). When good pigeons make bad decisions: Choice with probabilistic delays and outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rachlin, H., Battalio, R., Kagel, J., & Green, L. (1981). Maximization theory in behavioral psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rachlin, H., Green, L., Kagel, J. H., & Battalio, R. C. (1976). Economic demand theory and psychological studies of choice. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 10, pp. 129–154). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  87. Rachlin, H., Kagel, J. H., & Battalio, R. C. (1980). Substitutability in time allocation. Psychological Review, 87, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Romanowich, P., Cozine, A., & Worthen, D. L. (2017). Effects of reinforcement context on initial link responding in concurrent chain reinforcement schedules. Psychological Record, 67, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Seidl, C. (2002). Preference reversal. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16, 621–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shimp, C. P. (1966). Probabilistically reinforced choice behavior in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Spetch, M. L., & Dunn, R. (1987). Choice between reliable and unreliable outcomes: Mixed percentage-reinforcement in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Squires, N., & Fantino, E. (1971). A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stagner, J. P., & Zentall, T. R. (2010). Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 412–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Stoner, J. A. F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. The Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Takahashi, M. (1993). Psychological distance to reward in monkeys. Behavioural Processes, 30, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Takahashi, M. (1997). Recent developments in the study of choice behavior: Towards a comparative study of decision making. Japanese Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11, 9–28.Google Scholar
  102. Tanaka, S. C., Doya, K., Okada, G., Ueda, K., Okamoto, Y., & Yamawaki, S. (2004). Prediction of immediate and future rewards differentially recruits cortico-basal ganglia loops. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 887–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 392–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vaughan, W. (1981). Melioration, matching, and maximization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vriend, N. J. (1996). Rational behavior and economic theory. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 29, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Williams, B. A. (1988). Reinforcement, choice, and response strength. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 2. Learning and Cognition (2nd ed., pp. 167–244). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  107. Winett, R. A., Moore, J. F., & Anderson, E. S. (1991). Extending the concept of social validity: Behavior analysis for disease prevention and health promotion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zentall, T. R. (2016). Resolving the paradox of suboptimal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 42, 1–14.Google Scholar
  109. Zentall, T. R., Laude, J. R., Stagner, J. P., & Smith, A. P. (2015). Suboptimal choice by pigeons: Evidence that the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than its frequency determines choice. The Psychological Record, 65, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. (2011a). Maladaptive choice behaviour by pigeons: An animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behaviour). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zentall, T. R., & Stagner, J. P. (2011b). Sub-optimal choice by pigeons: Failure to support the Allais paradox. Learning and Motivation, 42, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takeharu Igaki
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Romanowich
    • 2
  • Takayuki Sakagami
    • 3
  1. 1.Ryutsu Keizai UniversityMatsudo-shiJapan
  2. 2.University of Texas San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  3. 3.Keio UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations