Fishing for the Right Words: Decision Rules for Human Foraging Behavior in Internal Search Tasks

Animals depleting one patch of resources must decide when to leave and switch to a fresh patch. Foraging theory has predicted various decision mechanisms; which is best depends on environmental variation in patch quality. Previously we tested whether these mechanisms underlie human decision making when foraging for external resources; here we test whether humans behave similarly in a cognitive task seeking internally generated solutions. Subjects searched for meaningful words made from random letter sequences, and as their success rate declined, they could opt to switch to a fresh sequence. As in the external foraging context, time since the previous success and the interval preceding it had a major influence on when subjects switched. Subjects also used the commonness of sequence letters as a proximal cue to patch quality that influenced when to switch. Contrary to optimality predictions, switching decisions were independent of whether sequences differed little or widely in quality.

[1]  BARBARA LIVOREIL,et al.  Patch departure decisions by spice finches foraging singly or in groups , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Priming and conservation between spatial and cognitive search , 2007 .

[3]  E. Wajnberg,et al.  Time allocation strategies in insect parasitoids: from ultimate predictions to proximate behavioral mechanisms , 2006, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[4]  Zheng Wang,et al.  Grazing or Staying Tuned: A Stochastic Dynamic Model of Channel Changing Behavior - eScholarship , 2006 .

[5]  C. Bernstein,et al.  Information acquisition and time allocation in insect parasitoids , 2003 .

[6]  C. Bernstein,et al.  Patch departure mechanisms and optimal host exploitation in an insect parasitoid , 1999 .

[7]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Human foraging behavior in a virtual environment , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  Peter Pirolli,et al.  Information Foraging , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[9]  Donald A. Hantula,et al.  Towards a behavioral ecology of consumption: delay‐reduction effects on foraging in a simulated Internet mall , 2000 .

[10]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Prey Distribution as a Factor Determining the Choice of Optimal Foraging Strategy , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[11]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Penalized Survival Models and Frailty , 2003 .

[12]  W. J. Bell.  Searching Behaviour: The Behavioural Ecology of Finding Resources , 1991 .

[13]  Hansjörg Neth,et al.  Discretionary task interleaving: heuristics for time allocation in cognitive foraging. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  H. Barrett,et al.  Modularity in cognition: framing the debate. , 2006, Psychological review.

[15]  P. Pirolli.  Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information , 2007 .

[16]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Evolved responses to an uncertain world , 2006 .

[18]  E. Charnov.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[19]  J. Waage,et al.  Foraging for patchily-distributed hosts by the parasitoid, Nemeritis canescens , 1979 .

[20]  Donald A. Hantula,et al.  Pricing effects on foraging in a simulated Internet shopping mall , 2003 .

[21]  A. Houston,et al.  Optimal foraging and learning , 1985 .

[22]  P. Sandstrom.  An Optimal Foraging Approach to Information Seeking and Use , 1994, The Library Quarterly.

[23]  P. Todd,et al.  Environments That Make Us Smart , 2007 .

[24]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[25]  Thomas T. Hills.  Animal Foraging and the Evolution of Goal-Directed Cognition , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  Bruce Winterhalder,et al.  Hunter-gatherer foraging strategies : ethnographic and archeological analyses , 1983 .

[27]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[28]  Ian P. Woiwod,et al.  THE DENSITY-DEPENDENCE OF SPATIAL BEHAVIOUR AND THE RARITY OF RANDOMNESS , 1978 .

[29]  Peter Pirolli,et al.  Rational Analyses of Information Foraging on the Web , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  T. Caraco,et al.  Social Foraging Theory , 2018 .

[31]  J. McNamara.  Optimal patch use in a stochastic environment , 1982 .

[32]  Raymond Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  Duncan Metcalfe,et al.  A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade‐off between Field Processing and Transport , 1992 .

[34]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[35]  L. Shaltiel,et al.  The use of kairomones for foraging decisions by an aphid parasitoid in small host aggregations , 1998 .

[36]  Alessandra Conversi,et al.  Comparative Analysis , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[37]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Search in External and Internal Spaces , 2008, Psychological science.

[38]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Knowledge of resources and competitors in human foraging , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[39]  P. Nonacs.  State dependent behavior and the Marginal Value Theorem , 2001 .

[40]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination , 1991 .

[41]  Eric Wajnberg,et al.  A comparative analysis of patch-leaving decision rules in a parasitoid family. , 2003, The Journal of animal ecology.

[42]  P. Grambsch,et al.  A Package for Survival Analysis in S , 1994 .

[43]  Paul J. B. Hart,et al.  The influence of sex, patch quality, and travel time on foraging decisions by young adult Homo sapiens L. , 1986 .

[44]  V. Carey,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus , 2001 .

[45]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Testing Simple Rules for Human Foraging in Patchy Environments , 2005 .

[46]  B. Hood,et al.  Is Visual Search Really like Foraging? , 2001, Perception.

[47]  Per Kragh Andersen,et al.  Testing Goodness of Fit of Cox's Regression and Life Model , 1982 .

[48]  R. R. Krausz.  Living in Groups , 2013 .

[49]  L. R. Taylor,et al.  Aggregation, Variance and the Mean , 1961, Nature.

[50]  Robert L. Kelly,et al.  The Foraging Spectrum , 2007 .

[51]  P N Hineline,et al.  Human choice in "counterintuitive" situations: fixed- versus progressive-ratio schedules. , 1992, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[52]  Odile Pons,et al.  Patch leaving decision rules and the Marginal Value Theorem: an experimental analysis and a simulation model. , 2000 .

[53]  H. Arkes,et al.  The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals? , 1999 .

[54]  Marcus J. Hamilton,et al.  The prey as patch model: optimal handling of resources with diminishing returns , 2005 .

[55]  P. Todd,et al.  Patch leaving in humans: can a generalist adapt its rules to dispersal of items across patches? , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[56]  D.,et al.  Regression Models and Life-Tables , 2022 .

[57]  J. Krebs,et al.  Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging: A study of patch use by chickadees , 1974 .

[58]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Evidence for generalized cognitive search processes at multiple levels in a hierarchical problem solving task , 2008 .

[59]  M. Rodríguez-Gironés,et al.  Density-Dependent Patch Exploitation and Acquisition of Environmental Information , 1997, Theoretical population biology.

[60]  P. Sandstrom.  Scholars as Subsistence Foragers , 2005 .