Resolving the paradox of suboptimal choice.

When humans engage in commercial (totally probabilistic) gambling they are making suboptimal choices because the return is generally less than the investment. This review (a) examines the literature on pigeon suboptimal choice, (b) describes the conditions under which it occurs, (c) identifies the mechanisms that appear to be responsible for the effect, and (d) suggests that similar processes may be able to account for analogous suboptimal choice when humans engage in commercial gambling. Pigeons show suboptimal choice when they choose between 1 alternative that 20% of the time provides them with a signal that they will always get fed or 80% of the time with a signal that they will not get fed (overall 20% reinforcement) and a second alternative that 100% of the time provides them with a signal that they will get fed 50% of the time (overall 50% reinforcement). The pigeons' strong preference for the suboptimal choice was investigated in a series of experiments that found the preference for the suboptimal alternative was determined by the value of the signal that predicted reinforcement, rather its frequency and that the frequency of the signal that predicted nonreinforcement had little effect on the suboptimal choice. Paradoxically, this account makes the prediction that pigeons will be indifferent between an alternative that 50% of the time provides a fully predictive stimulus for reinforcement and an alternative that 100% of the time provides a fully predictive stimulus for reinforcement. The similarities and differences of this suboptimal choice task to human gambling are discussed.