It’s not clear if this study has anything to do with the Monty Hall problem. They didn’t provide subjects with instructions about how the chances of winning were determined (so it’s not clear if the humans were modeling it as they do the standard Monty Hall problem). And when they reversed the probabilities (so that p(win|stay)=2/3 and p(win|switch)=1/3) they still got the same results, with pigeons (but not humans) learning to almost exclusively pick the better option (which shows that the results don’t depend on the underlying logic of them Monty Hall problem). So the problem is not people’s reluctance to switch, and it might not be related to people’s troubles with the standard Monty Hall problem.
The studies look like an extension of probability matching research, which show that with this particular experimental setup you get probability matching in humans but not in pigeons. But instead of systematically investigating what is going on with that, they went for the sexy Monty Hall association.
It’s not clear if this study has anything to do with the Monty Hall problem. They didn’t provide subjects with instructions about how the chances of winning were determined (so it’s not clear if the humans were modeling it as they do the standard Monty Hall problem). And when they reversed the probabilities (so that p(win|stay)=2/3 and p(win|switch)=1/3) they still got the same results, with pigeons (but not humans) learning to almost exclusively pick the better option (which shows that the results don’t depend on the underlying logic of them Monty Hall problem). So the problem is not people’s reluctance to switch, and it might not be related to people’s troubles with the standard Monty Hall problem.
The studies look like an extension of probability matching research, which show that with this particular experimental setup you get probability matching in humans but not in pigeons. But instead of systematically investigating what is going on with that, they went for the sexy Monty Hall association.