Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 429–434 | Cite as

Environmental enrichment affects suboptimal, risky, gambling-like choice by pigeons

  • Kristina F. Pattison
  • Jennifer R. Laude
  • Thomas R. Zentall
Original Paper

Abstract

Pigeons prefer a risky option with a low probability of a high payoff over a less risky option that results in more food. This finding is analogous to suboptimal human monetary gambling because in both cases there appears to be an overemphasis of the occurrence of the winning event and an underemphasis of the losing event. In the present research, we found that pigeons that were exposed to an enriched environment (a large cage with three other pigeons for 4 h a day) were less likely to show this suboptimal choice behavior compared with typically housed laboratory pigeons in a control group. These results have implications for the mechanisms underlying suboptimal choice by humans (e.g., problem gamblers), and they suggest that a enriched environment may allow for enhanced self-control.

Keywords

Environmental enrichment Suboptimal choice Gambling Self-control Pigeons 

References

  1. Black DW, Moyer T (1998) Clinical features and psychiatric comorbidity of subjects with pathological gambling behavior. Psychiatr Serv 49:1434–1439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanco C, Moreyra P, Nunes EV, Sáiz-Ruiz J, Ibáñez A (2001) Pathological gambling: addiction or compulsion? Sem Clin Neuropsychol 6:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briones TL, Klintsova AY, Greenough WT (2004) Stability of synaptic plasticity in the adult rat visual cortex induced by complex environment exposure. Brain Res 1018:130–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brydges NM, Leach M, Nicol K, Wright R, Bateson M (2011) Environmental enrichment induces optimistic cognitive bias in rats. Animal Behav 81:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diamond MC, Law F, Rhodes H, Lindner B, Rosenzweig MR, Krech D, Bennett EL (1966) Increases in cortical depth and glia numbers in rats subjected to enriched environment. J Comp Neurol 128:117–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinsmoor JA (1983) Observing and conditioned reinforcement. Behav Brain Sci 6:693–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Field M, Cox WM (2008) Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: a review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug Alcoh Dep 97:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forgays DG, Forgays JW (1952) The nature of the effect of free-environmental experience in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol 45(4):322–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franken IHA, Stam C, Hendriks VM, van den Brink W (2003) Neuropsychological evidence for abnormal cognitive processing of drug cues in heroin dependence. Psychopharm 170:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner E, Boitano JJ, Mancino NS, D’Amico DP, Gardner EL (1975) Environmental enrichment and deprivation: effects on learning, memory and exploration. Physiol Behav 14(3):321–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gipson CD, Alessandri JD, Miller HC, Zentall TR (2009) Preference for 50 % reinforcement over 75 % reinforcement by pigeons. Learn Behav 37:289–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenberg D, Rankin H (1982) Compulsive gamblers in treatment. Br J Psychiatr 140:364–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebb DO (1947) The effects of early experience on problem-solving at maturity. Am Psychol 2:306–307Google Scholar
  14. Holst RJ, van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE (2010) Why gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:87–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones GH, Marsden CA, Robbins TW (1990) Increased sensitivity to amphetamine and reward-related stimuli following social isolation in rats: possible disruption of dopamine-dependent mechanisms of the nucleus accumbens. Psychopharam 3:364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matheson SM, Asher L, Bateson M (2008) Larger, enriched cages are associated with ‘optimistic’ response biases in captive European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Appl Animal Behav Sci 109(2–4):374–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Molet M, Miller HC, Laude JR, Kirk C, Manning B, Zentall TR (2012) Decision-making by humans as assessed by a choice task: do humans, like pigeons, show sub-optimal choice? Learn Behav 40:439–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moran E (1970) Varieties of pathological gambling. Br J Psychiatr 116:593–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perry JL, Carroll ME (2008) The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse. Psychopharm 200:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Potenza MN (2008) The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: an overview and new findings. Phil Trans R Soc B 363:3181–3189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stagner JP, Zentall TR (2010) Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychon Bull Rev 17:412–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stairs DJ, Bardo MT (2009) Neurobehavioral effects of environmental enrichment and drug abuse vulnerability. Pharm Biochem Behav 92:377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steel Z, Blaszczynski A (1998) Impulsivity, personality disorders and pathological gambling severity. Addiction 93:895–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zentall TR (2011) Maladaptive “gambling” by pigeons. Behav Proc 87:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zentall TR, Stagner JP (2011a) Maladaptive choice behaviour by pigeons: an animal analog and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision making behaviour). Proc R Soc B Bio Sci 278:1203–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zentall TR, Stagner JP (2011b) Sub-optimal choice by pigeons: failure to support the Allais paradox. Learn Motiv 42:245–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristina F. Pattison
    • 1
  • Jennifer R. Laude
    • 1
  • Thomas R. Zentall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations