What Makes the Ephemeral Reward Task So Difficult?

被引:0
|
作者
Mueller, Peyton M. [1 ]
Peng, Daniel N. [1 ]
Burroughs, William C. [1 ]
Zentall, Thomas R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Kentucky, Dept Psychol, Lexington, KY 40506 USA
关键词
ephemeral reward; discrimination; suboptimal choice; humans; CHOICE; FISH; ACQUISITION; PERFORMANCE; PRIMATES;
D O I
10.1037/com0000367
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The ephemeral reward task involves providing subjects with a choice between two distinctive stimuli, A and B, each containing an identical reward. If A is chosen, the reward associated with A is obtained and the trial is over. If B is chosen, the reward associated with B is obtained but A remains, and the reward associated with A can be obtained as well. Thus, the reward-maximizing solution is to choose B first. Although cleaner fish (wrasse) and parrots easily acquire the optimal response by choosing B, paradoxically, several nonhuman primate species, as well as rats and pigeons, do not. It appears that some species do not associate their choice and reward with the second reward. Surprisingly, research in an operant context with pigeons and rats suggests that inserting a delay between the choice and reward facilitates optimal choice. It is suggested that impulsivity may be, in part, responsible for the difficulty of the task. In an attempt to better understand this task, we trained human subjects on an operant version of this task, with and without a brief delay between choice and reward and found that many subjects failed to learn to choose optimally, independent of the delay. Furthermore, performance on this task was not correlated with a task thought to measure impulsivity, the Balloon Analog Risk Task or with the Abbreviated Impulsivity Survey. We concluded that, for humans, the task is confusing because there is no incorrect response, only good and better, and better is not easily discriminated.
引用
收藏
页码:150 / 156
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Researching “what went wrong” in professional development (PD) for mathematics teachers: What makes it so important, and so difficult?
    Ronnie Karsenty
    Karin Brodie
    [J]. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2023, 26 (5) : 573 - 580
  • [22] WHAT MAKES WORK DIFFICULT
    MADDEN, JM
    [J]. PERSONNEL JOURNAL, 1962, 41 (07) : 341 - 344
  • [23] WHAT MAKES A TASK DIFFICULT - A STUDY OF THE RELATION BETWEEN TASK REQUIREMENTS, TASK-PERFORMANCE, AND PERCEIVED DIFFICULTY
    WAERN, Y
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, 1982, 44 (04): : 393 - 408
  • [24] The paradoxical performance by different species on the ephemeral reward task
    Zentall, Thomas R.
    [J]. LEARNING & BEHAVIOR, 2021, 49 (01) : 99 - 105
  • [25] The paradoxical performance by different species on the ephemeral reward task
    Thomas R. Zentall
    [J]. Learning & Behavior, 2021, 49 : 99 - 105
  • [26] Clinical practice: recognizing child sexual abuse-what makes it so difficult?
    Vrolijk-Bosschaart, Thekla F.
    Brilleshjper-Kater, Sonja N.
    Benninga, Marc A.
    Lindauer, Ramon J. L.
    Teeuw, Arianne H.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2018, 177 (09) : 1343 - 1350
  • [27] What Makes "Difficult Patients" Difficult for Medical Students?
    Steinauer, Jody E.
    O'Sullivan, Patricia
    Preskill, Felisa
    ten Cate, Olle
    Teherani, Arianne
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2018, 93 (09) : 1359 - 1366
  • [28] What makes the windows task difficult for young children: Rule inference or rule use?
    Simpson, A
    Riggs, KJ
    Simon, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 87 (02) : 155 - 170
  • [29] What Makes Mental Modeling Difficult? Normative Data for the Multidimensional Relational Reasoning Task
    Cortes, Robert A.
    Weinberger, Adam B.
    Colaizzi, Griffin A.
    Porter, Grace F.
    Dyke, Emily L.
    Keaton, Holly O.
    Walker, Dakota L.
    Green, Adam E.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 12
  • [30] WHAT MAKES ACCURATE IGNORANCE DIFFICULT
    LANDAUER, TK
    GLUCKSBERG, S
    MCCLOSKEY, ME
    [J]. BULLETIN OF THE PSYCHONOMIC SOCIETY, 1980, 16 (03) : 173 - 173