Skip to main content
Log in

Decision making under risk: framing effects in pigeon risk preferences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When humans face probabilistic outcomes, their choices often depend on whether the choice is framed in terms of losses or gains. In the present research, we gave pigeons a choice between risky (variable) outcomes and safe (constant) outcomes that resulted in the same net reward. In Experiment 1, in which the outcomes represented a loss, the pigeons preferred the risky alternative. In Experiment 2, in which the outcomes represented a gain, the pigeons were indifferent between the two alternatives. In Experiment 3, in which the outcomes represented neither a gain nor a loss, the pigeons strongly preferred the risky alternative. The results were interpreted in terms of the relative value of gains and losses given to the alternatives by pigeons in the context of a risky and safe choice. In Experiment 4 we tested that hypothesis by giving pigeons a choice between a risky and safe alternative with the same net outcome, in the context of a gain associated with the safe alternative, but no gain or loss associated with the risky alternative. In support of the interpretation of the first three experiments, with the safe alternative associated with a gain, the pigeons now preferred the safe alternative. These results were discussed in terms of economic and foraging theories and were contrasted with the aversion to uncertainty (risk) more typically shown by humans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becker G (1976) The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chen MK, Lakshminaryanan V, Santos L (2006) How basic are behavioral biases? Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. J Political Econ 114:517–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton WD, Zentall TR (2021) Pigeons are attracted to a perceived gain without an actual gain. Anim Cog 24:605–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy U, List JA, Wo G (2006) The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst outcome. Quart J Econ 121:1283–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Economet 47:263–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lakshminarayanan V, Chen MK, Santos LR (2011) The evolution of decision-making under risk: Framing effects in monkey risk preferences. J Exp Soc Psychol 47:689–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh B, Kacelnik A (2002) Framing effects and risky decisions in starlings. Proc Nat Acad Sci 99:3352–3355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Menger C (2007) Principles of Economics. Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, (Orig. pub. 1871).

  • Odean T (1998) Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? J Finance 53:1775–1798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69:99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn U (2009) Direct risk aversion: Evidence from risky prospects valued below their worst outcome. Psych Sci 20:686–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgill J, Bergeron C, Ransdell T, Colvin T, Joshi G, Zentall TR (2021)“What you see may not be what you get”: Reverse contingency and perceived loss aversion in pigeons. Psychon Bull Rev, 28:1015–1020.

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zentall TR, Raley OL (2019) Object permanence in the pigeon: Insertion of a delay prior to choice facilitates visible- and invisible-displacement accuracy. J Comp Psych 133:132–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas R. Zentall.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All animals were treated in accordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Kentucky. The experimental procedures were according to Protocol # 2020–3675.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clayton, W.D., Brantley, S.M. & Zentall, T.R. Decision making under risk: framing effects in pigeon risk preferences. Anim Cogn 25, 1281–1288 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-022-01610-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-022-01610-y

Keywords

Navigation