CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 257Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsBehavioral and Psychological StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PROBABILISTICALLY REINFORCED CHOICE BEHAVIOR IN PIGEONS1

Open access
Shimp, Charles P.·1966·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
DOI 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-443PMC PMC1338246
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A single principle, "momentary maximizing", may account for much of a pigeon's steady-state behavior in both probability learning and concurrent variable interval experiments. The principle states that a pigeon tends to choose the alternative that momentarily has the higher probability of reinforcement. A successive discrimination procedure, which produced matching in an earlier experiment, produced here a tendency to maximize if training were adequately extended. Maximizing was produced also by other procedures, in which no reinforcing event was presented on some trials: one procedure did and two did not provide a bird with information about the availability of reinforcement on a key after an unreinforced response on the other key. The latter two procedures were analogous to concurrent variable interval schedules in two respects: the reinforcement probability on one key increased while a bird responded on the other key; and they produced matching. But sequential statistics suggested that matching resulted from momentary maximizing. Depending on the procedure, the tendency to maximize produced different relative frequencies of pecking a key for a fixed relative frequency of reinforcement. Computer simulation of maximizing behavior in several concurrent variable interval schedules produced matching and sequential statistics similar to those produced by a real bird.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-443

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 257

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Shimp, C. P.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Shimp, Charles P.
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1966-07
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
443-455
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
DOI
10.1901/jeab.1966.9-443
PMC
PMC1338246
OpenAlex
W2087585530
Cited by
257
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 17042 d)
Locations
  • Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
choice behavior, pigeons, probability learning, matching behavior, reinforcement probability, reinforcement frequency
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Computers, Discrimination Learning, Learning, Male, 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