Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:45:33.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanisms of decision-making and the interpretation of choice tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M Bateson
M Bateson*
Affiliation:
Evolution and Behaviour Research Group, School of Biology, University of Newcastle, Henry Wellcome Building for Neuroecology, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK
*
Melissa.Bateson@newcastle.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Choice tests are commonly used to measure animals’ preferences, and the results of such tests are used to make recommendations regarding animal husbandry. An implicit assumption underlying the majority of choice tests is that the preferences obtained are independent of the set of options available in the test. This follows from two assumptions about the mechanisms of choice: first, that animals use absolute evaluation mechanisms to assign value to options, and second, that the probability of choosing an option is proportional to the ratio between the value of that option and the sum of the values of the other options available. However, if either of these assumptions is incorrect then preferences can differ depending on the composition of the choice set. In support of this concern, evidence from foraging animals shows that preferences can change when a third, less preferred option is added to a binary choice. These findings have implications for the design and interpretation of choice tests.

Keywords

animal welfarechoice testcontext effectforaging decisionLuce's choice axiompreference
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S115 - S120
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bateson, M 2002 Context-dependent foraging preferences in risk sensitive starlings. Animal Behaviour 64: 251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, M, Healy, S and Hurly T, A 2002 Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour. Animal Behaviour 63: 587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, M, Healy, S D and Hurly T, A 2003 Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 270: 1271–1276CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J J and Appleby, M C 1995 Nesting behaviour of hens: effects of experience on motivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreu, G 1960 Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. American Economic Review 50: 186–188Google Scholar
Doyle, J R, O'Connor, D J, Reynolds, G M and Bottomley, P A 1999 The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology and Marketing 16: 225–2433.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J M, Lawrence T, L J, Rodway, R G and Varley, M A 1997 Animal Choices. British Society of Animal Science: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G, Todd, P M and Group, A R 1999 Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T, Odde, K G, Schutz, D N and Behrns, L M 1994 The reluctance of cattle to change a learned choice may confound preference tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, A I and McNamara, J M 1989 The value of food: effects of open and closed economies. Animal Behaviour 37: 546–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J, Payne, J W and Pluto, C 1982 Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research 9: 90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurly, T A 2003 The twin threshold model: risk-intermediate foraging by rufous hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour 66: 751–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurly, T A and Oseen, M D 1999 Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds. Animal Behaviour 58: 59–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inglis, I R and Ferguson, N J K 1986 Starlings search for food rather than eat readily available food. Animal Behaviour 34: 614–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R D 1959 Individual Choice Behavior. John Wiley and Sons: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Mason, G, Cooper, J and Garner, J 1997 Models of motivational decision-making and how they affect the experimental assessment of motivational priorities. In: Forbes, J M, Lawrence, T L J, Rodway, R G and Varley, M A (eds) Animal Choices pp 9–17. British Society of Animal Science: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J, Cooper, J and Clarebrough, C 2001 Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature 410: 35–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, L R and Ladewig, J 1994 Environmental requirements of pigs measured by behavioural demand functions. Animal Behaviour 47: 713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, J M and Houston, A I 1987 Partial preferences and foraging. Animal Behaviour 35: 1084–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, D S, Eckley, S and Cooper, J J 1997 Thoroughbred bedding preferences, associated behaviour differences and their implications for equine welfare. Animal Science 70: 95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J 1997 Environmental choices of farm animals. In: Forbes, J M, Lawrence, T L J, Rodway, R G and Varley, M A (eds) Animal Choices pp 35–43. British Society of Animal Science: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Shafir, S 1994 Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: support for ‘comparative’ evaluation of foraging options. Animal Behaviour 45: 55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafir, S, Waite, T A and Smith, B H 2002 Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 51: 180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A 1969 Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review 76: 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A and Simonson, I 1993 Context-dependent preferences. Management Science 39: 1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H 1996 Intermediate Microeconomics — A Modern Approach. Norton: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Warburton, H and Mason, G 2003 Is out of sight, out of mind? The effects of resource cues on motivation in the mink (Mustela vison). Animal Behaviour 65: 755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedell, D H 1991 Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 17: 767–778Google Scholar