Is superstitious responding a matter of detectability? A replication of Killeen (1978)

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Stephanie Gomes-Ng, Sarah Cowie, Douglas Elliffe
{"title":"Is superstitious responding a matter of detectability? A replication of Killeen (1978)","authors":"Stephanie Gomes-Ng,&nbsp;Sarah Cowie,&nbsp;Douglas Elliffe","doi":"10.1002/jeab.855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organisms may sometimes behave as if a contingency exists between behavior and consequences, even if this is not actually the case. Killeen (1978) suggested that such <i>superstition</i> occurs because of factors that bias subjects to behave “superstitiously” rather than because of failures of discrimination. We systematically replicated Killeen's experiment and compared contingency discrimination between different consequences. Six pigeons responded in a matching-to-sample procedure in which a response-independent or response-dependent stimulus change, food delivery, or blackout occurred. The pigeons reported whether the consequence was response dependent or response independent by choosing between two side keys. Discrimination was strongest after stimulus changes, weaker after blackouts, and weakest after food deliveries. These differences persisted even after additional training, suggesting asymmetries that may reflect differences in the disruptive effects of different consequences on remembering and/or behavioral mnemonics. Importantly, the pigeons were not biased to report response-dependent consequences unless that response was consistent with locational biases; that is, they behaved “superstitiously” when there was a reason to be biased to do so. These findings corroborate Killeen's and demonstrate that behavior may deviate from contingencies not necessarily because subjects cannot discriminate those contingencies but because they are biased to behave otherwise.</p>","PeriodicalId":17411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","volume":"120 2","pages":"171-185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeab.855","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeab.855","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organisms may sometimes behave as if a contingency exists between behavior and consequences, even if this is not actually the case. Killeen (1978) suggested that such superstition occurs because of factors that bias subjects to behave “superstitiously” rather than because of failures of discrimination. We systematically replicated Killeen's experiment and compared contingency discrimination between different consequences. Six pigeons responded in a matching-to-sample procedure in which a response-independent or response-dependent stimulus change, food delivery, or blackout occurred. The pigeons reported whether the consequence was response dependent or response independent by choosing between two side keys. Discrimination was strongest after stimulus changes, weaker after blackouts, and weakest after food deliveries. These differences persisted even after additional training, suggesting asymmetries that may reflect differences in the disruptive effects of different consequences on remembering and/or behavioral mnemonics. Importantly, the pigeons were not biased to report response-dependent consequences unless that response was consistent with locational biases; that is, they behaved “superstitiously” when there was a reason to be biased to do so. These findings corroborate Killeen's and demonstrate that behavior may deviate from contingencies not necessarily because subjects cannot discriminate those contingencies but because they are biased to behave otherwise.

Abstract Image

迷信反应是一个可察觉的问题吗?基林的翻版(1978)
生物体有时表现得好像行为和结果之间存在着偶然性,即使事实并非如此。Killeen(1978)认为,这种迷信的发生是由于偏见导致行为“迷信”的因素,而不是由于歧视的失败。我们系统地重复了Killeen的实验,并比较了不同结果之间的权变歧视。六只鸽子在一个与样本匹配的过程中做出反应,在这个过程中,反应独立或反应依赖的刺激变化、食物传递或停电发生了。鸽子通过选择两个侧键来报告结果是依赖于反应还是独立于反应。在刺激改变后,歧视最强烈,在停电后较弱,在送餐后最弱。这些差异甚至在额外的训练后仍然存在,这表明不对称可能反映了不同结果对记忆和/或行为助记的破坏性影响的差异。重要的是,鸽子不会偏向于报告依赖于反应的结果,除非该反应与位置偏见一致;也就是说,当有理由有偏见时,他们会表现得“迷信”。这些发现证实了Killeen的发现,并证明行为可能偏离偶然性,并不一定是因为受试者无法区分这些偶然性,而是因为他们倾向于做出其他行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is primarily for the original publication of experiments relevant to the behavior of individual organisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信