Anselme Patrick, Blaisdell Aaron P
Department of Biopsychology, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum.
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.
J Comp Psychol. 2024 Nov;138(4):276-288. doi: 10.1037/com0000386. Epub 2024 May 16.
Organisms are believed to attempt to maximize their net energy intake while foraging. The paradoxical choice task shows that they may instead prefer to obtain information rather than primary reward when the outcome is uncertain. That is, they prefer stimuli that consistently predict food or no food (informative option), to stimuli that inconsistently predict both food and no food in larger amounts (noninformative option). This task also seems to indicate that some species (like pigeons, and starlings, ) are more prone to choose the informative option, while other species (like rats, , and humans, ) tend to favor reward procurement through the noninformative option. There is empirical evidence for and against this view. However, an analysis of the literature suggests that species differences in paradoxical choice might be less pronounced than often believed. We argue that pigeons and rats are usually not tested under conditions that are motivationally equivalent for both species-in particular, the opportunities to track consistent stimulus-food pairings are less often met in the rat studies than in the pigeon studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
人们认为生物体在觅食时会试图使净能量摄入最大化。矛盾选择任务表明，当结果不确定时，它们可能更倾向于获取信息而非初级奖励。也就是说，相较于那些大量不一致地预测有食物和无食物的刺激（非信息性选项），它们更喜欢那些始终能预测有食物或无食物的刺激（信息性选项）。这项任务似乎还表明，一些物种（如鸽子和椋鸟）更倾向于选择信息性选项，而其他物种（如大鼠和人类）则倾向于通过非信息性选项来获取奖励。支持和反对这一观点的都有实证证据。然而，对文献的分析表明，矛盾选择中的物种差异可能并不像通常认为的那么明显。我们认为，鸽子和大鼠通常并非在对两个物种动机等效的条件下进行测试——特别是，在大鼠研究中，追踪一致的刺激 - 食物配对的机会比鸽子研究中更少。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2024美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
