Intuitive statistical inference: How pigeons categorize binomial samples
Tóm tắt
Pigeons categorized binomial samples produced by two complementary random processes. Samples were 1, 2, 4, or 8 successively presented outcomes (vertical or horizontal lines) of, in effect, tossing one of two equally likely coins. One coin (A) was biased in favor of vertical, and the other coin (B) was similarly biased in favor of horizontal. Choosing red or green stimuli presented after each sample was reinforced with food if coin A or coin B had been tossed, respectively. In that sense, choosing red or green was logically analogous to inferring that the statistical evidence reflected tossing of coin A or coin B, respectively. The statistical diagnosticity of a sample, the relative likelihood of its having been produced by a particular coin, equaled, except for sampling fluctuation, the relative frequency of reinforcement of a particular color given that sample, and was experimentally varied by the bias on the coins and by sample size. All the variables that affect optimal, formal inference about binomial samples also affected intuitive inference. But inferences were very suboptimal: “undermatching” was obtained in part due to control of categorization by the sequential structure of binomial samples. These results reveal limitations of optimality theories for animal decision making in the face of uncertainty when observations in samples are presented successively. On the other hand, they are generally compatible with molecular analyses of instrumental learning which assign an important role to the local temporal organization of events preceding reinforcement. Most generally, they show that maladaptive control over intuitive statistical inference by a variable upon which optimal performance does not depend is neither a uniquely human phenomenon nor dependent upon linguistic strategies.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Brunswick, E. (1939). Probability as a determiner of rat behavior.Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 175–197.
Catania, A. C. (1971). Reinforcement schedules: The role of responses preceding the one that produces the reinforcer.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,15, 271–287.
Clauson, H. D., Izatt, E. J., &Shimp, C. P. (1985). An infrared system for the detection of a pigeon’s pecks at alphanumeric characters on a TV screen: The dependency of letter detection on the predictability of one letter by another.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,2, 257–264.
Estes, W. K. (1972). Research and theory on the learning of probabilities.Journal of the American Statistical Association,67, 81–102.
Estes, W. K., Burke, C. J., Atkinson, R. C., &Frankmann, J. P. (1957). Probabilistic discrimination learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,54, 233–239.
Feller, W. (1950).An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
Gigerenzer, G., &Murray, D. J. (1987).Cognition as intuitive Statistics Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graf, V., Bullock, D. H., &Bitterman, M. E. (1964). Further experiments on probability-matching in the pigeon.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,7, 151–157.
Hale, J. M., &Shimp, C., P. (1975). Molecular contingencies: Reinforcement probability.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,24, 315–321.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., &Tversky, A. (1982).Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nisbet, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., &Kunda, Z. (1983), The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning.Psychological Review,90, 339–363.
Sands, S. F., Urcuioli, P. J., Wright, A. A. &Santiago, H. C. (1984). Serial position effects and rehearsal in primate visual memory. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds),Animal cognition (pp. 375–388). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shim, C. P. (1966). Probabilistically reinforced choice behavior in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 9, 443–445.
Shimp, C. P. (1973). Probabilistic discrimination learning in the pigeon.Journal of Experimental Psychology,87, 292–304.
Shimp, C. P. (1978), Memory, temporal discrimination, and learned structure in behavior. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 12, pp. 39–76). New York: Academic Press.
Shimp, C. P. (1984). Relations between memory and operant behavior, according to an associative learner (AL).Canadian Journal of Psychology,38, 269–284.
Staddon, J. E. R. (1988). Learning as inference. In R. C. Bolles & M. D. Beecher (Eds.),Evolution and learning (pp. 59–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Terrace, H. S. (1986). A nonverbal organism’s knowledge of ordinal position in a serial learning task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,12, 203–214.