Context-dependent decisions among options varying in a single dimension

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 115-120

  Morgan, Kate V ^a   Hurly, T Andrew ^b   Bateson, Melissa ^c   Asher, Lucy ^d   Healy, Susan D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Context dependent; Decision making; Foraging; Hummingbird; Irrationality

Indexed keywords

BIRD; DECISION MAKING; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BIRD; DECISION MAKING; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; NONHUMAN; SELASPHORUS RUFUS;

ANIMALS; APPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; BIRDS; DECISION MAKING; DIETARY SUCROSE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; MALE;

ANIMALIA; AVES; SELASPHORUS; SELASPHORUS RUFUS; TROCHILIDAE;

EID: 84856375252     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: 18728308     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.017     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bateman I.J., Munro A., Poe G.L. Decoy effects in choice experiments and contingent valuation: asymmetric dominance. Land Economics 2008, 84:115-127.
2. Bateson M. Context-dependent foraging choices in risk-sensitive starlings. Animal Behaviour 2002, 64:251-260.
3. Bateson M., Healy S.D., Hurly T.A. Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:587-596.
4. Bateson M., Healy S.D., Hurly T.A. Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 2003, 270:1271-1276.
5. Blem C.R., Blem L.B., Felix J., van Gelder J. Rufous hummingbird sucrose preference: precision of selection varies with concentration. Condor 2000, 102:235-238.
6. Choplin J.M., Hummel J.E. Comparison-induced decoy effects. Memory & Cognition 2005, 33:332-343.
7. Colman A.M., Pulford B.D., Bolger F. Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2007, 104:193-206.
8. Doyle J.R., O'Connor D.J., Reynolds G.N., Bottomley P.A. The robustness of the asymetrically dominated effect: buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology and Marketing 1999, 16:225-243.
9. Edwards S.C., Pratt S.C. Rationality in collective decision-making by ant colonies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2009, 276:3655-3661.
10. Helson H. Adaptation Level Theory: An Experimental and Systematic Approach to Behaviour 1964, Harper and Row, New York.
11. Huber J., Payne J.W., Puto C. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives-violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research 1982, 9:90-98.
12. Hurly T.A. The twin threshold model: risk-intermediate foraging by rufous hummingbirds, Selasphorus rufus. Animal Behaviour 2003, 66:751-761.
13. Hurly T.A., Oseen M.D. Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour 1999, 58:59-66.
14. Krumhansl C.L. Concerning applicability of geometric models to similarity data-interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review 1978, 85:445-463.
15. Latty T., Beekman M. Irrational decision-making in an amoeboid organism: transitivity and context-dependent preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2011, 278:307-312.
16. Montgomerie R.D. Nectar extraction by hummingbirds-response to different floral characters. Oecologia 1984, 63:229-236.
17. Montgomerie R.D., Eadie M., Harder L.D. What do foraging hummingbirds maximise?. Oecologia 1984, 63:357-363.
18. Pettibone J.C., Wedell D.H. Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2007, 20:323-341.
19. Pyke G.H., Pulliam H.R., Charnov E.L. Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. The Quarterly Review of Biology 1977, 52:137-154.
20. Scarpi D. The impact of phantom decoys on choices in cats. Animal Cognition 2011, 14:127-136.
21. Schoener T.W. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1971, 2:364-404.
22. Schuck-Paim C., Pompilio L., Kacelnik A. State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice. PloS Biology 2004, 2:2305-2315.
23. Shafir S., Waite T.A., Smith B.H. Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2002, 51:180-187.
24. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 1977, 84:327-352.
25. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
26. Tversky A., Simonson I. Context-dependent preferences. Management Science 1993, 39:1179-1189.
27. Wedell D.H., Pettibone J.C. Preference and the contextual basis of ideals in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1999, 128:346-361.
28. Wedell D.H., Santoyo E.M., Pettibone J.C. The thick and the thin of it: contextual effects in body perception. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2005, 27:213-228.
29. Zellner D.A., Rohm E.A., Bassetti T.L., Parker S. Compared to what? Effects of categorization on hedonic contrast. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2003, 10:468-473.