Cognitive mechanisms of risky choice: Is there an evaluation cost?

We contrast two classes of choice processes, those assuming time-consuming comparisons and those where stimuli for each option act independently, competing for expression by cross censorship. The Sequential Choice Model (SCM) belongs in the latter category, and has received empirical support in several procedures involving deterministic alternatives. Here we test this model in risky choices. In two treatments, each with five conditions, European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) faced choices between options with unpredictable outcomes and risk-free alternatives. In the delay treatment the five conditions involved choices between a variable option offering two equiprobable delays to reward and a fixed option with delay differing between conditions. The amount treatment was structurally similar, but amount of reward rather than delay was manipulated. As assumed (and required) by the SCM, latency to respond in no-choice trials reflected each option's richness with respect to the background alternatives, and, crucially, preferences in simultaneous choices were predictable from latencies to each option in forced trials. However, we did not detect reliable differences in response times between forced and choice trials, neither the lengthening expected from evaluation models nor the shortening expected from the SCM.

[1]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  Preferences for fixed and variable food sources: variability in amount and delay. , 1995, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  Cost can increase preference in starlings , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  C. Bradshaw,et al.  Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  A Kacelnik,et al.  Risky choice and Weber's Law. , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

[5]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. , 1999, Psychological review.

[6]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  Simultaneous and sequential choice as a function of reward delay and magnitude: normative, descriptive and process-based models tested in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[7]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  Risk sensitivity for amounts of and delay to rewards: Adaptation for uncertainty or by-product of reward rate maximising? , 2012, Behavioural Processes.

[8]  J. E. Mazur Distributed versus exclusive preference in discrete-trial choice. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[9]  Melissa Bateson,et al.  The energetic costs of alternative rate currencies in the foraging starling , 1996 .

[10]  Juan C. Reboreda,et al.  Risk sensitivity in starlings: variability in food amount and food delay , 1991 .

[11]  P. Killeen On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  Michael Davison The matching law , 1987 .

[13]  R. Herrnstein On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  Alex Kacelnik,et al.  Choice Processes in Multialternative Decision Making , 2007 .

[15]  D. Blough A random-walk model of accuracy and reaction time applied to three experiments on pigeon visual discrimination. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[16]  Marco Vasconcelos,et al.  Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: A test of within-trial contrast , 2008, Learning & behavior.

[17]  E. Charnov Optimal Foraging: Attack Strategy of a Mantid , 1976, The American Naturalist.

[18]  T. A. Mark,et al.  Kinetics of matching. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[19]  Alex Kacelnik,et al.  State-dependent learning and suboptimal choice: when starlings prefer long over short delays to food , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[20]  Alex Kacelnik,et al.  Darwin’s “tug-of-war” vs. starlings’ “horse-racing”: how adaptations for sequential encounters drive simultaneous choice , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[21]  Alan Grafen,et al.  Modern statistics for the life sciences , 2002 .

[22]  J. Aw,et al.  How costs affect preferences: experiments on state dependence, hedonic state and within-trial contrast in starlings , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[23]  J. Aw,et al.  Sequential and simultaneous choices: Testing the diet selection and sequential choice models , 2009, Behavioural Processes.

[24]  J. Aw,et al.  Choice in multi-alternative environments: A trial-by-trial implementation of the Sequential Choice Model , 2010, Behavioural Processes.

[25]  Alex Kacelnik,et al.  Rate currencies and the foraging starling: the fallacy of the averages revisited , 1996 .

[26]  W. N. Schoenfeld The Theory of reinforcement schedules , 1970 .

[27]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[28]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives of Intertemporal Choice , 2003 .