An official website of the United States government
Abstract 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.
more »
« less
Economic foraging in a floral marketplace: asymmetrically dominated decoy effects in bumblebees
While most models of decision-making assume that individuals assign options absolute values, animals often assess options comparatively, violating principles of economic rationality. Such ‘irrational’ preferences are especially common when two rewards vary along multiple dimensions of quality and a third, ‘decoy’ option is available. Bumblebees are models of decision-making, yet whether they are subject to decoy effects is unknown. We addressed this question using bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) choosing between flowers that varied in their nectar concentration and reward rate. We first gave bees a choice between two flower types, one higher in concentration and the other higher in reward rate. Bees were then given a choice between these flowers and either a ‘concentration’ or ‘rate’ decoy, designed to be asymmetrically dominated on each axis. The rate decoy increased bees’ preference in the expected direction, while the concentration decoy did not. In a second experiment, we manipulated choices along two single reward dimensions to test whether this discrepancy was explained by differences in how concentration versus reward rate were evaluated. We found that low-concentration decoys increased bees’ preference for the medium option as predicted, whereas low-rate decoys had no effect. Our results suggest that both low- and high-value flowers can influence pollinator preferences in ways previously unconsidered.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2445480
- PAR ID:
- 10558982
- Publisher / Repository:
- Proceedings B
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Volume:
- 291
- Issue:
- 2031
- ISSN:
- 0962-8452
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Snell-Rood, Emilie (Ed.)Foraging theory assumes that animals assess value based on objective payoffs; however, animals often evaluate rewards comparatively, forming expectations based on recent experience. This form of evaluation may be particularly relevant for nectar foragers such as bumblebees, where individuals can visit thousands of flowers daily that vary in nectar quality. While many animals, including bees, demonstrate reference-based evaluation in experimental contexts, it is unclear whether this occurs in the wild. Here, we asked how daily experience with wildflower nectar influenced wild bumblebees’ reward evaluation. We measured the daily nectar concentration of bee-visited wildflowers (Penstemon spp.), before presenting foragers with conspecific flowers filled with a range of artificial nectar concentrations. We recorded bees’ acceptance of artificial nectar, the probability of subsequent visits to flowers on the same plant, and residence time. While bees had a minimum threshold of nectar acceptability that was unaffected by experience, when there was higher-concentration environmental nectar, they were less likely to accept lower-quality rewards on manipulated plants. Bees also visited more flowers and stayed longer on plants with higher-concentration nectar. This study shows evidence for both absolute and reference-based evaluation in wild bees and points towards differences between bees’ behavior in lab- and wild-foraging contexts.more » « less
-
While classic models of animal decision-making assume that individuals assess the absolute value of options, decades of research have shown that rewards are often evaluated relative to recent experience, creating incentive contrast effects. Contrast effects are often assumed to be purely sensory, yet consumer and experimental psychology tell us that label-based expectations can affect value perception in humans and rodents. However, this has rarely been tested in non-model systems. Bumblebees forage on a variety of flowers that vary in their signals and rewards and show contrast when rewards are lowered. We manipulated bees' expectations of stimulus quality, before downshifting the reward to induce incentive contrast. We found that contrast effects were not solely driven by experience with a better reward, but also influenced by experience with associated stimuli. While bees' initial response did not differ between treatments, individuals were faster to accept the lower-quality reward when it was paired with a novel stimulus. We explored the boundaries of these label-based expectations by testing bees along a stimulus gradient and found that expectations generalized to similar stimuli. Such reference-dependent evaluations may play an important role in bees' foraging choices, with the potential to impact floral evolution and plant community dynamics.more » « less
-
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
-
Abstract Greater adoption of renewable energy technologies by households is a key component of decarbonization and energy transition goals. Although existing literature has examined how sociodemographic characteristics, “green” preferences, and peer effects impact adoption of new energy technology, the role of behavioral preferences has not been adequately studied. In this paper, we examine the effect of two types of behavioral preferences, namely the degree of risk tolerance (risk preference) and attitude toward delayed reward (time preference) on the contract decision to lease or own a solar photovoltaic (PV) system. We develop a theoretical framework to show that the effect of risk and time preferences on the relative utilities from the two contracts is monotonic: Lower risk aversion and lower discount rate (more patience) imply a higher chance of solar PV ownership. To test these predictions empirically, we first estimate preference parameters (risk aversion and discount rate) from laboratory data collected from solar PV adopters. We then combine the parameter estimates with data on actual solar PV contract choice to examine the relationship between solar PV adopters' time and risk preferences and their lease‐versus‐own choice. Our regression results confirm that less risk averse individuals have a higher tendency to choose the ownership option, whereas more patient individuals are (weakly) more likely to own their solar PV systems. These findings contribute to a greater understanding of the role of behavioral factors in household decisions related to energy technologies.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0843
