Sequential choices using signal detection theory can reverse classical predictions

&NA; The behavioural sciences have been strongly influenced for several decades by signal detection theory (also known as “error management theory” and “ROC analysis”). The theory provides simple logic about how individuals should behave in order to maximize their expected payoff in a single decision; for instance, the theory predicts that as the probability of a particular danger increases, individuals should be more prone to avoiding that danger. However, such findings need not hold in situations where more than 1 decision will be made, and recent work has shown that when behavior is allowed to depend on the energy reserves of the individual, the classical predictions can be reversed. Here, we use a simple analytic technique to show that even when the same behavioral rules are used at every reserve level, the predictions of classical signal detection theory (as though only a single decision will be made) are often reversed in a world where autocorrelation is high. The classical predictions are reversed because individuals will often make multiple decisions to achieve a goal, and the outcome of an action can influence the number of subsequent decisions that are required. The finding suggests that fundamental predictions should be altered across many of the behavioral sciences, not only in relation to signal detection theory, but also other single‐decision models.

[1]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[2]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Temporal Variation in Danger Drives Antipredator Behavior: The Predation Risk Allocation Hypothesis , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[3]  Randolph M. Nesse,et al.  Natural selection and the regulation of defenses: A signal detection analysis of the smoke detector principle. , 2004 .

[4]  Daniel Nettle,et al.  The Evolutionary Origins of Mood and Its Disorders , 2012, Current Biology.

[5]  Lisa Feldman Barrett,et al.  Emotional learning and mechanisms of intentional psychological change. , 1999 .

[6]  Alasdair I. Houston,et al.  The Effect of a Change in Foraging Options on Intake Rate and Predation Rate , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[7]  Thomas Getty,et al.  Signal Detection Theory and Foraging for Cryptic or Mimetic Prey , 1987 .

[8]  Pete C. Trimmer,et al.  Generalized Optimal Risk Allocation: Foraging and Antipredator Behavior in a Fluctuating Environment , 2012, The American Naturalist.

[9]  Daniel Nettle,et al.  The Paranoid Optimist: An Integrative Evolutionary Model of Cognitive Biases , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[10]  T. Sherratt,et al.  An empirical test of signal detection theory as it applies to Batesian mimicry , 2006, Behavioural Processes.

[11]  H. Reeve,et al.  The Evolution of Conspecific Acceptance Thresholds , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[12]  Pete C. Trimmer,et al.  Predicting behavioural responses to novel organisms: state-dependent detection theory , 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  Lisa Feldman Barrett,et al.  “Utilizing” Signal Detection Theory , 2014, Psychological science.

[14]  John L. Orrock,et al.  Error management in plant allocation to herbivore defense. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  T. Getty Search, Discrimination, and Selection: Mate Choice by Pied Flycatchers , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[16]  Pete C. Trimmer,et al.  The erroneous signals of detection theory , 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  Alasdair I. Houston,et al.  Models of Adaptive Behaviour: An Approach Based on State , 1999 .