CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Probability matching is not the default decision making strategy in human and non-human primates

Open access
Saldana, Carmen, Claidière, Nicolas, Fagot, Joël, Smith, Kenny·2022·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-022-16983-wPMC PMC9338980
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Probability matching has long been taken as a prime example of irrational behaviour in human decision making; however, its nature and uniqueness in the animal world is still much debated. In this paper we report a set of four preregistered experiments testing adult humans and Guinea baboons on matched probability learning tasks, manipulating task complexity (binary or ternary prediction tasks) and reinforcement procedures (with and without corrective feedback). Our findings suggest that probability matching behaviour within primate species is restricted to humans and the simplest possible binary prediction tasks; utility-maximising is seen in more complex tasks for humans as pattern-search becomes more effortful, and we observe it across the board in baboons, altogether suggesting that it is a cognitively less demanding strategy. These results provide further evidence that neither human nor non-human primates default to probability matching; however, unlike other primates, adult humans probability match when the cost of pattern search is low.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-022-16983-w

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In learning tasks, participants who initially match increasingly adopt maximizing as their strategy.

    “In such tasks, participants who initially match increasingly adopt maximizing as their strategy (e.g.,Saldana et al., 2022;Shanks et al., 2002).”

    From Probability matching and statistical naïveté (2025) · cites this paper as Saldana et al., 2022

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that optimal responses increased across testing blocks in skewed-reward tasks and that most participants in ternary tasks eventually maximised. It does not establish that those participants initially probability-matched; it also says binary-task participants were less likely to maximise. The Experiment 1 Results add that binary-task participants did not converge to maximising even with more trials. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recent work has questioned how often probability matching happens in probability learning tasks.

    “Recent work has questioned how often probability matching happens in probability learning tasks, where participants learn probabilities over numerous trials(Montag, 2021;Saldana et al., 2022).”

    From Probability matching and statistical naïveté (2025) · cites this paper as Saldana et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. [1]Vulkan N An economist’s perspective on probability matching J. Econ. Surv. 2000 14 101 118 10.1111/1467-6419.00106 · DOI
  2. [2]Koehler DJ James G Probability matching, fast and slow Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 2014 61 103 131 10.1016/B978-0-12-800283-4.00003 · DOI
  3. [3]Montag JL Limited evidence for probability matching as a strategy in probability learning tasks Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 2021 10.1016/bs.plm.2021.02.005 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]HudsonKam CL Newport E When learners change languages. Getting it right by getting it wrong Cogn. Psychol. 2009 59 30 66 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001 19324332 PMC2703698 · DOI
  5. [5]Wonnacott, E. & Newport, E.L. Novelty and Regularization: The Effect of Novel Instances on Rule Formation Novelty and Regularization: The Effect of Novel Instances on Rule Formation. In BUCLD 29 Proceedings of Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, 2005).
  6. [6]Ferdinand V Kirby S Smith K The cognitive roots of regularization in language Cognition 2019 184 53 68 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.12.002 30572180 · DOI
  7. [7]Kogler C Kühberger A Dual process theories: A key for understanding the diversification bias? J. Risk Uncertain. 2007 34 145 154 10.1007/s11166-007-9008-7 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [8]West RF Stanovich KE Is probability matching smart? Associations between probabilistic choices and cognitive ability Mem. Cognit. 2003 31 243 251 10.3758/BF03194383 12749466 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [10]Derks PL Paclisanu MI Simple strategies in binary prediction by children and adults J. Exp. Psychol. 1967 73 278 10.1037/h0024137 · DOI
  10. [11]Stevenson HW Weir MW Variables affecting children’s performance in a probability learning task J. Exp. Psychol. 1959 57 403 10.1037/h0039258 13654658 · DOI
  11. [12]Weir MW Developmental changes in problem-solving strategies Psychol. Rev. 1964 71 473 10.1037/h0041785 14218072 · DOI
  12. [13]Hudso Kam CL Newport E Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change Lang. Learn. Dev. 2005 1 151 195 10.1207/s15473341lld0102_3 · DOI
  13. [14]Parrish AE Brosnan SF Wilson BJ Beran MJ Differential responding by Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and humans (Homo sapiens) to variable outcomes in the assurance game Anim. Behav. Cogn. 2014 1 215 229 10.12966/abc.08.01.2014 · DOI
  14. [15]Brosnan SF Wilson BJ Beran MJ Old world monkeys are more similar to humans than new world monkeys when playing a coordination game Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012 279 1522 1530 10.1098/rspb.2011.1781 PMC3282334 22072604 · DOI
  15. [16]Meyer DR The effects of differential probabilities of reinforcement on discrimination learning by monkeys J. Comput. Physiol. Psychol. 1960 53 173 10.1037/h0045852 · DOI
  16. [17]Wilson WA Rollin AR Two-choice behavior of rhesus monkeys in a noncontingent situation J. Exp. Psychol. 1959 58 174 180 10.1037/h0043061 13845143 · DOI
  17. [18]Treichler FR Reinforcer preference effects on probability learning by monkeys J. Comput. Physiol. Psychol. 1967 64 339 10.1037/h0087997 4963668 · DOI
  18. [19]Wilson WA Supplementary report: Two-choice behavior of monkeys J. Exp. Psychol. 1960 59 207 10.1037/h0041915 · DOI
  19. [20]Woolverton WL Rowlett JK Choice maintained by cocaine or food in monkeys: Effects of varying probability of reinforcement Psychopharmacology 1998 138 102 106 10.1007/s002130050651 9694533 · DOI
  20. [21]Bitterman M Wodinsky J Candland DK Some comparative psychology Am. J. Psychol. 1958 71 94 110 10.2307/1419199 13521022 · DOI
  21. [22]Bullock DH Bitterman ME Probability-matching in the pigeon Am. J. Psychol. 1962 75 634 639 10.2307/1420288 14016794 · DOI
  22. [23]Longo N Probability-learning and habit-reversal in the cockroach Am. J. Psychol. 1964 77 29 41 10.2307/1419269 14130361 · DOI
  23. [24]Huettel SA Mack PB McCarthy G Perceiving patterns in random series: Dynamic processing of sequence in prefrontal cortex Nat. Neurosci. 2002 5 485 490 10.1038/nn841 11941373 · DOI
  24. [25]Newell BR Schulze C Pohl RF Probability matching Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Thinking, Judgment and Memory 2017 Taylor & Francis
  25. [26]Gigerenzer G Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World 2002 Oxford University Press
  26. [27]Unturbe J Corominas J Probability matching involves rule-generating ability: A neuropsychological mechanism dealing with probabilities Neuropsychology 2007 21 621 10.1037/0894-4105.21.5.621 17784810 · DOI
  27. [30]Perfors A Adult regularization of inconsistent input depends on pragmatic factors Lang. Learn. Dev. 2016 12 138 155 10.1080/15475441.2015.1052449 · DOI
  28. [31]Newell BR Rakow T The role of experience in decisions from description Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 2007 14 1133 1139 10.3758/BF03193102 18229486 · DOI
  29. [32]Beach LR Swensson RG Instructions about randomness and run dependency in two-choice learning J. Exp. Psychol. 1967 75 279 10.1037/h0024979 6062970 · DOI
  30. [33]Rubinstein I Some factors in probability matching J. Exp. Psychol. 1959 57 413 10.1037/h0038962 13654659 · DOI
  31. [34]Peterson CR Ulehla Z Sequential patterns and maximizing J. Exp. Psychol. 1965 69 1 10.1037/h0021597 14256242 · DOI
  32. [35]Morse EB Runquist WN Probability-matching with an unscheduled random sequence Am. J. Psychol. 1960 73 603 607 10.2307/1419951 13772920 · DOI
  33. [36]Shanks DR Tunney RJ McCarthy JD A re-examination of probability matching and rational choice J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2002 15 233 250 10.1002/bdm.413 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [37]Gardner RA Probability-learning with two and three choices Am. J. Psychol. 1957 70 174 185 10.2307/1419319 13424757 · DOI
  35. [38]Weir MW Probability performance: Reinforcement procedure and number of alternatives Am. J. Psychol. 1972 20 261 270 10.2307/1420666 · DOI
  36. [39]Smith K Wonnacott E Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning Cognition 2010 116 444 449 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.004 20615499 · DOI
  37. [40]Cornish, H., Smith, K. & Kirby, S. Systems from sequences: An iterated learning account of the emergence of systematic structure in a non-linguistic task. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35 (2013).
  38. [41]Samara A Smith K Brown H Wonnacott E Acquiring variation in an artificial language: Children and adults are sensitive to socially conditioned linguistic variation Cogn. Psychol. 2017 94 85 114 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.02.004 28340356 · DOI
  39. [42]Miller MB Valsangkar-Smyth M Newman S Dumont H Wolford G Brain activations associated with probability matching Neuropsychologia 2005 43 1598 1608 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.01.021 16009242 · DOI
  40. [43]Koehler DJ James G Probability matching in choice under uncertainty: Intuition versus deliberation Cognition 2009 113 123 127 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.003 19664762 · DOI · Paper page
  41. [44]Brennan TJ Lo AW The origin of behavior Q. J. Financ. 2011 1 55 108 10.1142/S201013921100002X · DOI
  42. [45]Lo AW Marlowe KP Zhang R To maximize or randomize? An experimental study of probability matching in financial decision making PLoS One 2021 16 e0252540 10.1371/journal.pone.0252540 34437550 PMC8389367 · DOI
  43. [46]James G Koehler DJ Banking on a bad bet: Probability matching in risky choice is linked to expectation generation Psychol. Sci. 2011 22 7 11 10.1177/0956797611407933 21551340 · DOI · Paper page
  44. [47]Otto AR Taylor EG Markman AB There are at least two kinds of probability matching: Evidence from a secondary task Cognition 2011 118 274 279 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.009 21145046 · DOI
  45. [48]Shimp CP Reinforcement of least-frequent sequences of choices 1 J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1967 10 57 65 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-57 16811306 PMC1338318 · DOI
  46. [49]Topping JS Parker BK Constant and variable delay of reinforcement effects on probability learning by pigeons J. Comput. Physiol. Psychol. 1970 70 141 10.1037/h0028415 · DOI
  47. [50]Suppes P Atkinson RC Markov Learning Models for Multiperson Interactions 1960 Stanford University Press
  48. [51]Siegel S Goldstein DA Decision-making behavior in a two-choice uncertain outcome situation J. Exp. Psychol. 1959 57 37 10.1037/h0045959 13620864 · DOI
  49. [52]Fischer GJ Maximizing and role of correction method in probability learning in chicks J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 1972 80 49 10.1037/h0032844 5044262 · DOI
  50. [53]Saldana, C., Claidière, N., Fagot, J. & Smith, K. Probability matching in human and non-human primates. 10.17605/OSF.IO/QNM57 (2022). PMC9338980 35907973 · DOI
  51. [54]Fagot J Paleressompoulle D Automatic testing of cognitive performance in baboons maintained in social groups Behav. Res. Methods 2009 41 396 404 10.3758/BRM.41.2.396 19363180 · DOI
  52. [55]Fagot J Bonté E Automated testing of cognitive performance in monkeys: Use of a battery of computerized test systems by a troop of semi-free-ranging baboons (papio papio) Behav. Res. Methods 2010 42 507 516 10.3758/BRM.42.2.507 20479182 · DOI
  53. [56]Schulze C James G Koehler DJ Newell BR Probability matching does not decrease under cognitive load: A preregistered failure to replicate Mem. Cogn. 2019 47 511 518 10.3758/s13421-018-0888-3 PMC6450852 30617746 · DOI
  54. [57]Offenbach SI Studies of children’s probability learning behavior: I effect of reward and punishment at two age levels Child Dev. 1964 20 709 715 10.2307/1126496 14203807 · DOI
  55. [58]Craig GJ Myers JL A developmental study of sequential two-choice decision making Child Dev. 1963 20 483 493 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1963.tb05153.x 14023622 · DOI
  56. [59]Plate RC Fulvio JM Shutts K Green CS Pollak SD Probability learning: Changes in behavior across time and development Child Dev. 2018 89 205 218 10.1111/cdev.12718 28121026 PMC5526727 · DOI
  57. [60]Graf V Bullock D Bitterman M Further experiments on probability-matching in the pigeon 1 J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1964 7 151 157 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-151 14130091 PMC1404312 · DOI
  58. [61]Kirk KL Bitterman M Probability-learning by the turtle Science 1965 148 1484 1485 10.1126/science.148.3676.1484 14294140 · DOI
  59. [62]Gao J Corter JE Striving for perfection and falling short: The influence of goals on probability matching Mem. Cogn. 2015 43 748 759 10.3758/s13421-014-0500-4 25576020 · DOI
  60. [63]De Leeuw JR jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser Behav. Res. Methods 2015 47 1 12 10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y 24683129 · DOI
  61. [64]Wickham H Welcome to the tidyverse J. Open Source Softw. 2019 4 1686 10.21105/joss.01686 · DOI · Paper page
  62. [65]Bates D Mächler M Bolker B Walker S Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4 J. Stat. Softw. 2015 67 1 48 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  63. [66]Sochat V The experiment factory: Reproducible experiment containers J. Open Source Softw. 2018 3 521 10.21105/joss.00521 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saldana, C., Claidière, N., Fagot, J., & Smith, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Saldana, Carmen
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-07-30
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
13092-13092
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-022-16983-w
PMC
PMC9338980
OpenAlex
W4288758397
Cited by
13
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-LABX-0036)
  • Horizon 2020 (681942)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
probability matching, decision-making, non-human primates, Guinea baboon, utility maximization, pattern search, corrective feedback, reinforcement learning, task complexity, irrational behavior, human-animal comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Decision Making, Humans, Primates, Probability, Probability Learning, Reinforcement, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review