The impact of phantom decoys on choices in cats

Context-dependent choice is an important aspect of decision making. The paper examines context-dependent choice in cats (Felis catus), with particular reference to the effect of local context, on the basis of hypotheses developed in the field of human decision making. Cats were initially confronted with two different feeding options. This binary choice set was later manipulated incorporating a decoy that was better than the available options but ultimately unavailable (a phantom). By means of a within-subjects manipulation of phantom location in the attribute space, the author compared the effects of close and distant phantoms on the final choices. The main finding is that close phantom decoys affected choice behavior of cats by altering the overall share of the available options, leading some animals to reject even some of the available feeding options, and by causing the animals to favor the available option that was more similar to the phantom decoy. No significant effects emerged for phantoms that were far from the alternatives in the attribute space. The strengths of this paper lie in its novel approach and high originality. No other study has used dominating decoys with animals or decoys that are unattainable. This paper provides strong links to the human decision making literature, the presentation of the predictions of a range of different choice models, and the novelty of the application to animals. The use of a phantom decoy is particularly interesting because the phantom cannot actually be chosen, and thus the binary and trinary choice sets both have the very same choices available. Overall, the effect of phantoms is real, interesting and new.

[1]  T. A. Hurly,et al.  Context–dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Joel L. Davis,et al.  Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain , 1994 .

[3]  D. H. Wedell,et al.  Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals , 1991 .

[4]  Jessica M. Choplin,et al.  Comparison-induced decoy effects , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[5]  J. Slaughter.  Effects of two selection batteries on decoy effects in job-finalist choice , 2007 .

[6]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Preference Fluency on Consumer Decision Making , 2004 .

[7]  T. A. Hurly,et al.  Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  Alexander Chernev,et al.  Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice , 2004 .

[9]  Thomas A. Waite,et al.  Background context and decision making in hoarding gray jays , 2001 .

[10]  R. Dhar,et al.  Preference Fluency in Choice , 2007 .

[11]  Y. Aloimonos.  Active Perception , 1993 .

[12]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[13]  P. Farquhar,et al.  A Brief History of Research on Phantom Alternatives: Evidence for Seven Empirical Generalizations About Phantoms , 1992 .

[14]  V. Seagroatt.  An introduction to medical statistics (2nd ed.) , 1996 .

[15]  Daniel G Goldstein,et al.  Making better decisions: from measuring to constructing preferences. , 2005, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[16]  Douglas H. Wedell.  Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals , 1991 .

[17]  T. Waite.  Intransitive preferences in hoarding gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis) , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[18]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach , 1993 .

[19]  Andrew M. Parker,et al.  Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects , 2005 .

[20]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  A critique of pure vision , 1993 .

[21]  Wedell,et al.  Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[22]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Toward Extending the Compromise Effect to Complex Buying Contexts , 2004 .

[23]  T. Andrew Hurly,et al.  Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  Martin Bland,et al.  An Introduction to Medical Statistics , 1987 .

[25]  L. Gustafsson.  Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (3rd edn): edited by J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991. £19.95 pbk (xi + 482 pages) ISBN 0 632 02702 9 , 1992 .

[26]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice☆ , 1996 .

[27]  J. Doyle,et al.  The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in‐store purchases , 1999 .

[28]  E. Ciani,et al.  Total score as a genetic index of meat quality traits in chianina beef cattle , 2005 .

[29]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bdm.557 Testing Alternative Explanations of Phantom Decoy Effects , 2007 .

[30]  Daniele Scarpi.  The impact of decoys and background information on consumers' preferences and decision making , 2008 .

[31]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[32]  S. Shafir.  Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: support for 'comparative' evaluation of foraging options , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[33]  S. Shafir,et al.  Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis) , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[34]  T. O'Brien,et al.  Risk aversion in hand-reared bananaquits , 1985, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[35]  M. Mangel.  Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (4th edn) , 1997 .

[36]  A. Kacelnik.  CENTRAL PLACE FORAGING IN STARLINGS (STURNUS-VULGARIS) .1. PATCH RESIDENCE TIME , 1984 .

[37]  R. A. Wicklund.  Freedom and reactance , 1974 .

[38]  J. Brehm.  A theory of psychological reactance. , 1981 .

[39]  Impact of independent judges in comparability studies conducted by awarding bodies , 2002 .

[40]  J. Krebs,et al.  Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach , 1978 .

[41]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[42]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[43]  J. Townsend,et al.  Multialternative Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic Connectionist Model of Decision Making , 2001 .

[44]  A. Tversky,et al.  Context-dependent preferences , 1993 .

[45]  M. Bateson.  Recent advances in our understanding of risk-sensitive foraging preferences , 2002, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.

[46]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[47]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  Imperfect Information in Pre-choice Screening of Options , 1994 .