Context-dependent decisions among options varying in a single dimension

Contrary to theories of rational choice, adding alternatives to a choice set can change the choices made by both humans and animals. This is usually done by adding an inferior decoy to a choice set of two favoured options that are characterized on two distinct dimensions. We presented wild, free-living rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) with choices between two or three options that varied in a single dimension only. The options varied in concentration, in volume or in corolla length. When the options varied in concentration, the addition of a medium option to a choice set of a low and a high concentration caused birds to increase their preference for the high option. However, they decreased their preference for the high concentration option when a low option was added to a choice set of high and medium concentrations. When the options varied only in volume, the addition of a high volume option to a choice set of low and medium options decreased the birds' preference for the medium option. We saw no effects of adding a third option when the options varied in corolla length alone. Hummingbirds, then, make context-dependent decisions even when the options vary in only a single dimension although which effect occurs seems to depend on the dimension being manipulated. None of the current theories alone adequately explain these results.

[1]  S. Pratt,et al.  Rationality in collective decision-making by ant colonies , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  C. Krumhansl.  Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. , 1978 .

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

[4]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance , 2008, Land Economics.

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

[6]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  State-Dependent Decisions Cause Apparent Violations of Rationality in Animal Choice , 2004, PLoS biology.

[7]  R. Montgomerie,et al.  What do foraging hummingbirds maximize? , 1984, Oecologia.

[8]  H. Helson.  Adaptation-level theory : an experimental and systematic approach to behavior , 1964 .

[9]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  The Thick and the Thin of It: Contextual Effects in Body Perception , 2005 .

[10]  T. Schoener.  Theory of Feeding Strategies , 1971 .

[11]  Graham H. Pyke,et al.  Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests , 1977, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

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

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

[14]  M. Beekman,et al.  Irrational decision-making in an amoeboid organism: transitivity and context-dependent preferences , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Andrew T. Hurly.  The twin threshold model: risk-intermediate foraging by rufous hummingbirds, Selasphorus rufus , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  R. Montgomerie.  Nectar extraction by hummingbirds: response to different floral characters , 1984, Oecologia.

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

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

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

[20]  Melissa Bateson,et al.  Context-dependent foraging choices in risk-sensitive starlings , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[21]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  Preference and the Contextual Basis of Ideals in Judgment and Choice , 1999 .

[22]  F. Bolger,et al.  Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games , 2007 .

[23]  Daniele Scarpi,et al.  The impact of phantom decoys on choices in cats , 2010, Animal Cognition.

[24]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

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

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[27]  Terri L. Bassetti,et al.  Compared to what? Effects of categorization on hedonic contrast , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  C. Blem,et al.  RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD SUCROSE PREFERENCE: PRECISION OF SELECTION VARIES WITH CONCENTRATION , 2000 .

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

[30]  C. Krumhansl.  Concerning the Applicability of Geometric Models to Similarity Data : The Interrelationship Between Similarity and Spatial Density , 2005 .