Choice processes in multialternative decision making

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 541-550

  Schuck Paim, Cynthia ^a,b   Kacelnik, Alex ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Choice; Decision making; Foraging; Learning; Rationality; Risk sensitivity

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; LEARNING; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA; STURNIDAE;

EID: 34548427323     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm005     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Allen JA. 1988. Frequency-dependent selection by predators. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 319:485-503.
2. Bateson M. 1993. Currencies for decision making: the foraging starling as a model animal [DPhil thesis]. Oxford: University of Oxford.
3. Bateson M. 2002. Context-dependent foraging choices in risk-sensitive starlings. Anim Behav. 64:251-260.
4. Bateson M, Healy SD. 2005. Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol. 20:659-664.
5. Bateson M, Healy SD, Hurly A. 2002. Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour. Anim Behav. 63:587-596.
6. Bateson M, Healy SD, Hurly A. 2003. Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:1271-1276.
7. Bateson M, Kacelnik A. 1995. Preferences for fixed and variable food sources: variability in amount and delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 63:313-329.
8. Bateson M, Kacelnik A. 1996. Rate currencies and the foraging starling: the fallacy of the averages revisited. Behav Ecol. 7:341-352.
9. Bateson M, Kacelnik A. 1998. Risk-sensitive foraging: decision making in variable environments. In: Dukas R, editor. Cognitive ecology. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press. p. 297-341.
10. Brito e Abreu F. 1998. Risk sensitivity and decision making in birds [DPhil thesis]. Oxford: University of Oxford.
11. Caraco T, Blanckenhorn WU, Gregory GM, Newman JA, Recer GM, Zwicker SM. 1990. Risk-sensitivity: ambient temperature affects foraging choice. Anim Behav. 39:338-345.
12. Cartar RV, Dill LM. 1990. Why are bumble bees risk sensitive foragers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 26:121-127.
13. Catania CA, Reynolds GS. 1968. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 11:327-385.
14. Charnov EL. 1976. Optimal foraging: marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 9:129-136.
15. Clarke FR. 1957. Constant-ratio rule for confusion matrices in speech communication. J Acoust Soc Am. 29:715-720.
16. Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME. 1987. Discrimination of color-odor compounds by honeybees: tests of a continuity model. Anim Learn Behav. 15:218-227.
17. Dow SM, Lea SEG. 1987. Sampling of scheduled parameters by pigeons: tests of optimization theory. Anim Behav. 35:102-114.
18. Gibbon J, Church RM, Fairhurst S, Kacelnik A. 1988. Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards. Psychol Rev. 95:102-114.
19. Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C. 1982. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consum Res. 9:90-98.
20. Hutchinson JMC. 2005. Is more choice always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biol Rev. 80:73-92.
21. Kacelnik A, Bateson M. 1996. Risky theories - the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am Zool. 36:402-434.
22. Kacelnik A, Brito e Abreu F. 1998. Risky choice and Weber's Law. J Theor Biol. 194:289-298.
23. Krebs JR, Kacelnik A, Taylor A. 1978. Tests of optimal sampling by foraging great tits. Nature. 275:27-31.
24. Leak TM, Gibbon J. 1995. Simultaneous timing of multiple intervals - implications of the scalar property. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 21:3-19.
25. Luce RD. 1959. Individual choice behaviour: a theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
26. Mazur JE. 1984. Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 10:426-436.
27. McNamara JM, Houston AI. 1992. Risk-sensitive foraging: a review of the theory. Bull Math Biol. 54:355-378.
28. Montague PR, Dayan P, Person C, Sejnowski TJ. 1995. Bee foraging in uncertain environments using predictive hebbian learning. Nature. 377:725-728.
29. Namboodiri NK. 1972. Experimental designs in which each subject is used repeatedly. Psychol Bull. 77:54-64.
30. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. 1992. Behavioral decision research - a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 43:87-131.
31. Real LA, Ott J, Silverfine E. 1982. On the tradeoff between mean and variance in foraging: an experimental analysis with bumblebees. Ecology. 63:1617-1623.
32. Reboreda JC, Kacelnik A. 1991. Risk sensitivity in starlings: variability in food amount and food delay. Behav Ecol. 2:301-308.
33. Schuck-Paim C, Kacelnik A. 2002. Rationality in risk-sensitive foraging choices by starlings. Anim Behav. 64:869-879.
34. Schuck-Paim C, Pompilio L, Kacelnik A. 2004. State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice. PLoS Biol. 2:2305-2315.
35. Shafir S, Waite TA, Smith BH. 2002. Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis melifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 51:180-187.
36. Shapiro MS. 2000. Quantitative analysis of risk sensitivity in honeybees (Apis mellifera) with variability in concentration and amount of reward. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 26:196-205.
37. Shapiro MS, Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME. 2001. Quantitative tests of an associative theory of risk-sensitivity in honeybees. J Exp Biol. 204:565-573.
38. Simonson I. 1989. Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J Consum Res. 16:158-174.
39. Simonson I, Tversky A. 1992. Choice in context: trade-off contrast and extremeness aversion. J Mark Res. 29:281-295.
40. Slaughter JE, Sinar EF, Highhouse S. 1999. Decoy effects and attribute-level inferences. J Appl Psychol. 84:823-828.
41. Smithson A, MacNair MR. 1996. Frequency-dependent selection by pollinators: mechanisms and consequences with regard to behaviour of bumblebees Bombus terrestris (L.) (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J Evol Biol. 9:571-588.
42. Stephens DW. 1981. The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim Behav. 29:628-629.
43. Tversky A. 1972. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev. 79:281-299.
44. Tversky A, Russo JE. 1969. Substitutability and similarity in binary choices. J Math Psychol. 6:1-12.
45. Tversky A, Simonson I. 1993. Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci. 39:1179-1189.
46. Wedell DH. 1991. Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 17:767-778.
47. Wedell DH, Pettibone JC. 1996. Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 67:326-344.
48. Wunderle JM, O'Brien TG. 1985. Risk-aversion in hand reared bananaquits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 17:371-380.