CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92Behavioral and Psychological StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

FREEDOM AND KNOWLEDGE: AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PREFERENCE IN PIGEONS1

Open access
Catania, A. Charles·1975·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
DOI 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-89PMC PMC1333385
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Relative responding in initial links of concurrent‐chain schedules showed that pigeons preferred free to forced choices and informative to uninformative stimuli. Variable‐interval initial links on two lower keys (white) of a six‐key chamber produced terminal links on either two upper‐left keys (blue and/or amber) or two upper‐right keys (green and/or red). Terminal links in which pecks on either of two lit keys produced fixed‐interval reinforcement (free choice) were preferred to links with only one lit fixed‐interval key available (forced choice). Terminal links with different key colors correlated with concurrent fixed‐interval reinforcement and extinction (informative stimuli) were preferred to links with these schedules operating on same‐color keys (uninformative stimuli). Scheduling extinction for one of the two free‐choice keys assessed preference for two lit keys over one lit key, but confounded number with whether stimuli were informative. Fixed‐interval reinforcement for both keys in each terminal link, but with different‐color keys in one link and same‐color keys in the other, showed that preference for informative stimuli did not depend on stimulus variety. Preferences were independent of relative responses per reinforcement and other properties of terminal‐link performance.

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 · 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-89

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Humans and other animals prefer an option leading to a choice over an option that does not, even if the choice option results in greater effort or work, suggesting an inherent reward with the exercise of control.

    “Studies with both humans (Tiger, Hanley, & Hernandez, 2006) and other animals (Catania, 1975;Catania & Sagvolden, 1980;Voss & Homzie, 1970) have shown that both prefer an option leading to a choice than an option that does not, even if this option results in greater effort or worksuggesting the existence of an inherent reward with the exercise of control (Karsh & Eitam, 2015;Leotti & Delgado, 2011”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Catania, 1975

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: 7

  1. Autor, S. M. The strength of conditioned reinforcers as a function of frequency and probability of rein- forcement. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Univer- sity, 1960. Published in D. P. Hendry (Ed.), Condi- tioned reinforcement. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1969. Pp. 127-162.
  2. Catania, A. C. Concurrent operants. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: areas of research and appli- cation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Pp. 213-270.
  3. Daniels, P. V. The reinforcing value of information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia Uni- versity, 1971.
  4. Fantino, E. Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12, 723-730.
  5. Herrnstein, R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforce- ment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1961, 4, 267-272.
  6. Hursh, S. R. and Fantino, E. An appraisal of prefer- ence for multiple versus mixed schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974, 22, 31-38.
  7. Rachlin, H. and Green, L. Commitment, choice, and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 17, 15-22.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Catania, A. C.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
Corresponding author
Catania, A. Charles
ORCID
Catania, A. Charles
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1975-07
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
89-106
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
DOI
10.1901/jeab.1975.24-89
PMC
PMC1333385
OpenAlex
W2145590358
Cited by
92
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 13755 d)
Locations
  • Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • York University
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
preferences, pigeons, freedom of choice, forced choice, concurrent chains, variable-interval schedules, fixed-interval reinforcement, extinction, stimulus color

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