Understanding why animals (including humans) choose one thing over another is one of the key questions underlying the fields of behavioural ecology, behavioural economics and psychology. Most traditional studies of food choice in animals focus on simple, single‐attribute decision tasks. However, animals in the wild are often faced with multi‐attribute choice tasks where options in the choice set vary across multiple dimensions. Multi‐attribute decision‐making is particularly relevant for flower‐visiting insects faced with deciding between flowers that may differ in reward attributes such as sugar concentration, nectar volume and pollen composition as well as non‐rewarding attributes such as colour, symmetry and odour. How do flower‐visiting insects deal with complex multi‐attribute decision tasks? Here we review and synthesise research on the decision strategies used by flower‐visiting insects when making multi‐attribute decisions. In particular, we review how different types of foraging frameworks (classic optimal foraging theory, nutritional ecology, heuristics) conceptualise multi‐attribute choice and we discuss how phenomena such as innate preferences, flower constancy and context dependence influence our understanding of flower choice. We find that multi‐attribute decision‐making is a complex process that can be influenced by innate preferences, flower constancy, the composition of the choice set and economic reward value. We argue that to understand and predict flower choice in flower‐visiting insects, we need to move beyond simplified choice sets towards a view of multi‐attribute choice which integrates the role of non‐rewarding attributes and which includes flower constancy, innate preferences and context dependence. We further caution that behavioural experiments need to consider the possibility of context dependence in the design and interpretation of preference experiments. We conclude with a discussion of outstanding questions for future research. We also present a conceptual framework that incorporates the multiple dimensions of choice behaviour.
Uncovering the computational mechanisms underlying many-alternative choice
In our everyday lives, we often have to choose between many different options. When deciding what to order off a menu, for example, or what type of soda to buy in the supermarket, we have a range of possibilities to consider. So how do we decide what to go for? Researchers believe we make such choices by assigning a subjective value to each of the available options. But we can do this in several different ways. We could look at every option in turn, and then choose the best one once we have considered them all. This is a so-called ‘rational’ decision-making approach. But we could also consider each of the options one at a time and stop as soon as we find one that is good enough. This strategy is known as ‘satisficing’. In both approaches, we use our eyes to gather information about the items available. Most scientists have assumed that merely looking at an item – such as a particular brand of soda – does not affect how we feel about that item. But studies in which animals or people choose between much smaller sets of objects – usually up to four – suggest otherwise. The results from these studies indicate that looking at an item makes that item more attractive to the observer, thereby increasing its subjective value. Thomas et al. now show that gaze also plays an active role in the decision-making process when people are spoilt for choice. Healthy volunteers looked at pictures of up to 36 snack foods on a screen and were asked to select the one they would most like to eat. The researchers then recorded the volunteers’ choices and response times, and used eye-tracking technology to follow the direction of their gaze. They then tested which of the various decision-making strategies could best account for all the behaviour. The results showed that the volunteers’ behaviour was best explained by computer models that assumed that looking at an item increases its subjective value. Moreover, the results confirmed that we do not examine all items and then choose the best one. But neither do we use a purely satisficing approach: the volunteers chose the last item they had looked at less than half the time. Instead, we make decisions by comparing individual items against one another, going back and forth between them. The longer we look at an item, the more attractive it becomes, and the more likely we are to choose it.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1554837
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10288579
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- eLife
- Volume:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 2050-084X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
Traditional models of decision making under uncertainty explain human behavior in simple situations with a minimal set of alternatives and attributes. Some of them, such as prospect theory, have been proven successful and robust in such simple situations. Yet, less is known about the preference formation during decision making in more complex cases. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that attention plays a role in the decision process but most theories make simplifying assumptions about where attention is deployed. In this study, we replace these assumptions by measuring where humans deploy overt attention, i.e. where they fixate. To assess the influence of task complexity, participants perform two tasks. The simpler of the two requires participants to choose between two alternatives with two attributes each (four items to consider). The more complex one requires a choice between four alternatives with four attributes each (16 items to consider). We then compare a large set of model classes, of different levels of complexity, by considering the dynamic interactions between uncertainty, attention and pairwise comparisons between attribute values. The task of all models is to predict what choices humans make, using the sequence of observed eye movements for each participant as input to the model. We find that two models outperform all others. The first is the two-layer leaky accumulator which predicts human choices on the simpler task better than any other model. We call the second model, which is introduced in this study, TNPRO. It is modified from a previous model from management science and designed to deal with highly complex decision problems. Our results show that this model performs well in the simpler of our two tasks (second best, after the accumulator model) and best for the complex task. Our results suggest that, when faced with complex choice problems, people prefer to accumulate preference based on attention-guided pairwise comparisons.more » « less
-
more » « less
Navigating conflict is integral to decision-making, serving a central role both in the subjective experience of choice as well as contemporary theories of how we choose. However, the lack of a sensitive, accessible, and interpretable metric of conflict has led researchers to focus on choice itself rather than how individuals arrive at that choice. Using mouse-tracking—continuously sampling computer mouse location as participants decide—we demonstrate the theoretical and practical uses of dynamic assessments of choice from decision onset through conclusion. Specifically, we use mouse tracking to index conflict, quantified by the relative directness to the chosen option, in a domain for which conflict is integral: decisions involving risk. In deciding whether to accept risk, decision makers must integrate gains, losses, status quos, and outcome probabilities, a process that inevitably involves conflict. Across three preregistered studies, we tracked participants’ motor movements while they decided whether to accept or reject gambles. Our results show that 1) mouse-tracking metrics of conflict sensitively detect differences in the subjective value of risky versus certain options; 2) these metrics of conflict strongly predict participants’ risk preferences (loss aversion and decreasing marginal utility), even on a single-trial level; 3) these mouse-tracking metrics outperform participants’ reaction times in predicting risk preferences; and 4) manipulating risk preferences via a broad versus narrow bracketing manipulation influences conflict as indexed by mouse tracking. Together, these results highlight the importance of measuring conflict during risky choice and demonstrate the usefulness of mouse tracking as a tool to do so.
-
Humans and other animals make decisions under uncertainty. Choosing an option that provides information can improve decision making. However, subjects often choose information that does not increase the chances of obtaining reward. In a procedure that promotes such paradoxical choice, animals choose between two alternatives: The richer option is followed by a cue that is rewarded 50% of the time (No-info) and the leaner option is followed by one of two cues, one always rewarded (100%), and the other never rewarded, 0% (Info). Since decisions involve comparing the subjective value of options after integrating all their features perhaps including information value, preference for information may rely on cortico-amygdalar circuitry. To test this, male and female Long-Evans rats were prepared with bilateral inhibitory DREADDs in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), basolateral amygdala (BLA), or null virus infusions as a control. Using a counterbalanced design, we inhibited these regions after stable preference was acquired and during learning of new Info and No-info cues. We found that inhibition of ACC, but not OFC or BLA, selectively destabilized choice preference in female rats without affecting latency to choose or the response rate to cues. A logistic regression fit revealed that the previous choice strongly predicted preference in control animals, but not in female rats following ACC inhibition. BLA inhibition tended to decrease the learning of new cues that signaled the Info option, but had no effect on preference. The results reveal a causal, sex-dependent role for ACC in decisions involving information.more » « less
-
BACKGROUND Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex tackled the two main controversies arising from the Origin of Species: the evolution of humans from animal ancestors and the evolution of sexual ornaments. Most of the book focuses on the latter, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Research since supports his conjecture that songs, perfumes, and intricate dances evolve because they help secure mating partners. Evidence is overwhelming for a primary role of both male and female mate choice in sexual selection—not only through premating courtship but also through intimate interactions during and long after mating. But what makes one prospective mate more enticing than another? Darwin, shaped by misogyny and sexual prudery, invoked a “taste for the beautiful” without speculating on the origin of the “taste.” How to explain when the “final marriage ceremony” is between two rams? What of oral sex in bats, cloacal rubbing in bonobos, or the sexual spectrum in humans, all observable in Darwin’s time? By explaining desire through the lens of those male traits that caught his eyes and those of his gender and culture, Darwin elided these data in his theory of sexual evolution. Work since Darwin has focused on how traits and preferences coevolve. Preferences can evolve even if attractive signals only predict offspring attractiveness, but most attention has gone to the intuitive but tenuous premise that mating with gorgeous partners yields vigorous offspring. By focusing on those aspects of mating preferences that coevolve with male traits, many of Darwin’s influential followers have followed the same narrow path. The sexual selection debate in the 1980s was framed as “good genes versus runaway”: Do preferences coevolve with traits because traits predict genetic benefits, or simply because they are beautiful? To the broader world this is still the conversation. ADVANCES Even as they evolve toward ever-more-beautiful signals and healthier offspring, mate-choice mechanisms and courter traits are locked in an arms race of coercion and resistance, persuasion and skepticism. Traits favored by sexual selection often do so at the expense of chooser fitness, creating sexual conflict. Choosers then evolve preferences in response to the costs imposed by courters. Often, though, the current traits of courters tell us little about how preferences arise. Sensory systems are often tuned to nonsexual cues like food, favoring mating signals resembling those cues. And preferences can emerge simply from selection on choosing conspecifics. Sexual selection can therefore arise from chooser biases that have nothing to do with ornaments. Choice may occur before mating, as Darwin emphasized, but individuals mate multiple times and bias fertilization and offspring care toward favored partners. Mate choice can thus occur in myriad ways after mating, through behavioral, morphological, and physiological mechanisms. Like other biological traits, mating preferences vary among individuals and species along multiple dimensions. Some of this is likely adaptive, as different individuals will have different optimal mates. Indeed, mate choice may be more about choosing compatible partners than picking the “best” mate in the absolute sense. Compatibility-based choice can drive or reinforce genetic divergence and lead to speciation. The mechanisms underlying the “taste for the beautiful” determine whether mate choice accelerates or inhibits reproductive isolation. If preferences are learned from parents, or covary with ecological differences like the sensory environment, then choice can promote genetic divergence. If everyone shares preferences for attractive ornaments, then choice promotes gene flow between lineages. OUTLOOK Two major trends continue to shift the emphasis away from male “beauty” and toward how and why individuals make sexual choices. The first integrates neuroscience, genomics, and physiology. We need not limit ourselves to the feathers and dances that dazzled Darwin, which gives us a vastly richer picture of mate choice. The second is that despite persistent structural inequities in academia, a broader range of people study a broader range of questions. This new focus confirms Darwin’s insight that mate choice makes a primary contribution to sexual selection, but suggests that sexual selection is often tangential to mate choice. This conclusion challenges a persistent belief with sinister roots, whereby mate choice is all about male ornaments. Under this view, females evolve to prefer handsome males who provide healthy offspring, or alternatively, to express flighty whims for arbitrary traits. But mate-choice mechanisms also evolve for a host of other reasons Understanding mate choice mechanisms is key to understanding how sexual decisions underlie speciation and adaptation to environmental change. New theory and technology allow us to explicitly connect decision-making mechanisms with their evolutionary consequences. A century and a half after Darwin, we can shift our focus to females and males as choosers, rather than the gaudy by-products of mate choice. Mate choice mechanisms across domains of life. Sensory periphery for stimulus detection (yellow), brain for perceptual integration and evaluation (orange), and reproductive structures for postmating choice among pollen or sperm (teal). ILLUSTRATION: KELLIE HOLOSKI/ SCIENCEmore » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57012
