How costs affect preferences: Experiments on state dependence, hedonic state and within-trial contrast in starlings

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 81, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1117-1128

  Aw, Justine M ^a   Vasconcelos, Marco ^a   Kacelnik, Alex ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Choice; Concorde fallacy; Hedonic state; Starling; State dependent valuation learning; Strong stochastic transitivity; Sturnus vulgaris; Sunk cost; Within trial contrast

Indexed keywords

BIOENERGETICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FITNESS; LEARNING; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; LOCOMOTION; PASSERINE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; STOCHASTICITY; TRADE-OFF;

ANIMALIA; STURNIDAE; STURNUS VULGARIS;

EID: 79957687429     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.015     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Arantes J., Grace R.C. Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations. Learning & Behavior 2008, 36:1-11.
2. Arkes H.R., Ayton P. The Sunk Cost and Concorde effects: are humans less rational than lower animals?. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125:591-600.
3. Arkes H.R., Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1985, 35:124-140.
4. Aronson E., Mills J. The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1959, 59:177-181.
5. Aw J.M., Holbrook R.I., Burt de Perera T., Kacelnik A. State-dependent valuation learning in fish: banded tetras prefer stimuli associated with greater past deprivation. Behavioural Processes 2009, 81:333-336.
6. Bateson, M. 1993. Currencies for decision-making: the foraging starling as a model animal. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.
7. Bateson M. Context-dependent foraging choices in risk-sensitive starlings. Animal Behaviour 2002, 64:251-260.
8. Bateson M., Healy S.D., Hurly A. Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2002, 270:1271-1276.
9. Bateson P. The promise of behavioural biology. Animal Behaviour 2003, 65:11-17.
10. Bautista L.M., Tinbergen J., Kacelnik A. To walk or to fly: how birds choose among foraging modes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2001, 98:1089-1094.
11. Bernoulli D. Specimen Theoriae novae de Mensura Sortis (Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk). Econometrica 1738/1954, 22:23-36. Translated by L. Sommer.
12. Catania A.C. Reinforcement schedules and psychophysical judgments: a study of some temporal properties of behavior. The Theory of Reinforcement Schedules 1970, 1-42. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. W.N. Schoenfeld (Ed.).
13. Clement T.S., Zentall T.R. Second-order contrast based on the expectation of effort and reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 2002, 28:64-74.
14. Clement T.S., Feltus J.R., Kaiser D.H., Zentall T.R. Work ethic in pigeons: reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2000, 7:100-106.
15. Dawkins R., Carlisle T.R. Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature 1976, 262:131-133.
16. DiGian K.A., Friedrich A.M., Zentall T.R. Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:889-895.
17. Friedrich A.M., Zentall T.R. Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Behavioural Processes 2004, 67:405-415.
18. Gerard H.B., Mathewson G.C. The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group: a replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1966, 2:278-287.
19. Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M., The ABC Group Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
20. Houston A.I. Natural selection and context-dependent values. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1997, 264:1539-1541.
21. Hurly T.A., Oseen M.D. Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour 1999, 58:59-66.
22. Johnson, A. W. & Gallagher, M. Greater effort boosts the affective taste properties of food. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, in press, doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1581.
23. Kacelnik A., Marsh B. Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal Behaviour 2002, 3:245-250.
24. Luce R.D. Luce's choice axiom. Scholarpedia 2008, 3:8077.
25. Marsh B., Schuck-Palm C., Kacelnik A. State-dependent learning affects foraging choices in starlings. Behavioral Ecology 2004, 15:396-399.
26. Navarro A.D., Fantino E. The Sunk Cost Effect in pigeons and humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2005, 83:1-13.
27. Pompilio L., Kacelnik A. State-dependent learning and suboptimal choice: when starlings prefer long over short delays to food. Animal Behaviour 2005, 70:571-578.
28. Pompilio L., Kacelnik A., Behmer S.T. State-dependent learned valuation drives choice in an invertebrate. Science 2006, 311:1613-1615.
29. Real L.A. Paradox, performance, and the architecture of decision-making in animals. American Zoologist 1996, 36:518-529.
30. Roberts S. Isolation of an internal clock. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 1981, 7:242-268.
31. Rosenfeld P., Giacalone R.A., Tedeschi R. Cognitive dissonance and impression management: explanations for effort justification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1984, 10:394-401.
32. Sargent R.C., Gross M.R. Parental investment decision rules and the Concorde fallacy. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1985, 17:43-45.
33. Schuck-Paim C., Pompilio L., Kacelnik A. State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice. PLoS Biology 2004, 2:2305-2315.
34. Shafir S. Intransitivity of preferences in honeybees: support for comparative-evaluation of foraging options. Animal Behaviour 1994, 48:55-67.
35. Shafir S., Waite T.A., Smith B.H. Context-dependent violation of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2002, 51:180-187.
36. Simonson I., Tversky A. Choice in context: trade-off contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research 1992, 29:281-295.
37. Singer R.A., Berry L.M., Zentall T.R. Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: contrast or delay reduction?. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2007, 87:275-285.
38. Thaler R. Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 1980, 1:39-60.
39. Tversky A., Simonson I. Context-dependent preferences. Management Science 1993, 39:1179-1189.
40. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J. Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: A test of within-trial contrast. Learning & Behavior 2008, 36:12-18.
41. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J. Certainties and mysteries in the within-trial contrast literature: a reply to Zentall (2008). Learning & Behavior 2008, 36:23-25.
42. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J. Extensive training is insufficient to produce the work-ethic effect in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2009, 91:143-152.
43. Vasconcelos M., Urcuioli P.J., Lionello-DeNolf K.M. Failure to replicate the 'work ethic' effect in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2007, 87:383-399.
44. Waite T.A. Background context and decision making in hoarding gray jays. Behavioral Ecology 2001, 12:318-324.
45. Wedell D.H., Pettibone J.C. Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1996, 67:326-344.
46. Wiegmann D.D., Wiegmann D.A., MacNeal J., Gafford J. Transposition of flower height by bumble bee foragers (Bombus impatiens). Animal Cognition 2000, 3:85-89.
47. Zentall T.R. A within-trial contrast effect and its implications for several social psychological phenomena. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 2005, 18:273-297.
48. Zentall T.R. Within-trial contrast: when you see it and when you don't. Learning & Behavior 2008, 36:19-22.
49. Zentall T.R. Justification of effort by humans and pigeons: cognitive dissonance or contrast?. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2010, 19:296-300.
50. Zentall T.R., Singer R.A. Within-trial contrast: pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than less aversive event. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2007, 88:131-149.
51. Zentall T.R., Singer R.A. Within-trial contrast: when is a failure to replicate not a Type I error?. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2007, 87:401-404.
52. Zentall T.R., Clement T.S., Friedrich A.M., DiGian K.A. Stimuli signaling rewards that follow a less preferred event are themselves preferred: implications for cognitive dissonance. Comparative Cognition: Experimental Explorations of Animal Intelligence 2006, 651-667. Oxford University Press, New York. E.A. Wasserman, T.R. Zentall (Eds.).