Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour
Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour
复制标题
DOI：
10.1006/anbe.2001.1925
复制
发表时间：
2002-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Hurly, TA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bateson, M;Healy, SD;Hurly, TA
传统上认为，当动物评估备选方案时，分配给期权的值是绝对的，与其他可用选项无关。因此，动物的选择应该表现出规律性的理性属性，即不能通过在选择集上增加更多的选项来增加选项的比例。然而，在人类决策中会出现违反规律性的情况，这表明人类可能会使用比较评估机制，从而相对于其他可用选项来计算期权的价值。例如，在非对称支配的诱饵效应中，通过添加诱饵选项来改变对目标选项的偏好，该诱饵选项在一个属性上低于目标和竞争者，但在第二个属性上介于两者之间。我们测试了觅食野生红褐色蜂鸟--红腹小蜂鸟--是否会表现出对不对称支配的诱饵做出的违反规律的反应。16只鸟在三种人造花类型(目标：15-40%蔗糖；竞争对手：45-30%；诱饵：10-35%)之间进行二元(目标对竞争对手)和三元(目标对竞争对手对诱饵)处理。我们预测在三元治疗中对靶的偏好更高。这些鸟在二进制和三进制处理中以相同的顺序对三个选项进行了排序(竞争对手>；Targe>；诱饵)。七只鸟表现出违规行为，其中六只在三元处理中增加了对竞争对手的绝对偏好。总体而言，在三元组中，对竞争者的相对偏好高于二元组。这些偏好上的变化与绝对评估机制不相容。2002年动物行为研究死亡协会。
It is conventionally assumed that, when animals evaluate alternative options, the value assigned to an option is absolute and independent of the other options available. It follows that animal choices should exhibit the rational property of regularity whereby the proportion of choices for an option cannot be increased by the addition of further options to the choice set. However, violations of regularity occur in human decision making, suggesting that humans may use comparative evaluation mechanisms whereby the value of an option is computed relative to the other options available. For example, in the asymmetrically dominated decoy effect the preference for a target option over a competitor is altered by the addition of a decoy option that is inferior to the target and competitor on one attribute, but lies between them on a second. We tested whether foraging wild rufous hummingbirds, Selasphorus rufus, would demonstrate violations of regularity in response to an asymmetrically dominated decoy. Sixteen birds chose between three artificial flower types (Target: 15 mul, 40% sucrose; Competitor: 45 mul, 30%; Decoy: 10 mul, 35%) in Binary (Target versus Competitor) and Trinary (Target versus Competitor versus Decoy) treatments. We predicted higher preference for the Target in the Trinary treatment. The birds ranked the three options in the same order in the Binary and Trinary treatments (Competitor>Targe>Decoy). Seven birds showed violations of regularity, six increasing their absolute preference for the Competitor in the Trinary treatment. Overall, relative preference for the Competitor over the Target was higher in the Trinary than in the Binary treatment. These changes in preference are incompatible with an absolute evaluation mechanism. 2002 Die Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.