The aim of the present research is to develop a method for systematically comparing adaptive choice in humans and other animals. Several lines of evidence suggest that humans behave differently than other animals when confronted with choices involving short-term versus longer-term outcomes. More specifically, humans are often more sensitive to remote and probabilistic outcomes, suggesting perhaps that the processes governing adaptive choices in humans and other animals are fundamentally different. Another possibility is that human-animal disparities in adaptive choice reflect differences in the ways in which humans and other animals have typically been studied. The present research was designed to explore this latter possibility by examining the choice patterns of pigeon and human subjects under more closely analogous laboratory conditions than has been attempted in prior research. This work grows out of some recent research in the investigator's laboratory, which shows that modifying the procedures used with pigeons in ways that more closely approximate those used with humans results in performance that is more "human-like." The present research extends this approach in several significant ways, including the use of procedures that permit detailed quantitative information. By eliminating key procedural differences which have plagued prior cross-species comparisons, the present research will help in distinguishing genuine from superficial species differences. This will provide important information on the continuity of choice patterns across species, and on the degree to which principles discovered in the animal laboratory can be extended to fairly complex human activity. In identifying factors contributing to adaptive choice, this research may also provide a starting point for developing effective self-management techniques in humans.
