Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.

The integration of normative and descriptive analyses of decision processes in humans struggles with the fact that measuring preferences by different procedures yields different rankings and that humans appear irrationally impulsive (namely, show maladaptive preference for immediacy). Failure of pro...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tiago Monteiro, Marco Vasconcelos, Alex Kacelnik
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-08-01
Series:PLoS Biology
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000841
id doaj-cfa08729b28d47c8b1cb62c7bc027387
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cfa08729b28d47c8b1cb62c7bc0273872021-07-02T16:26:20ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Biology1544-91731545-78852020-08-01188e300084110.1371/journal.pbio.3000841Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.Tiago MonteiroMarco VasconcelosAlex KacelnikThe integration of normative and descriptive analyses of decision processes in humans struggles with the fact that measuring preferences by different procedures yields different rankings and that humans appear irrationally impulsive (namely, show maladaptive preference for immediacy). Failure of procedure invariance has led to the widespread hypothesis that preferences are constructed "on the spot" by cognitive evaluations performed at choice time, implying that choices should take extra time in order to perform the necessary comparisons. We examine this issue in experiments with starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and show that integrating normative and descriptive arguments is possible and may help reinterpreting human decision results. Our main findings are that (1) ranking alternatives through direct rating (response time) accurately predicts preference in choice, overcoming failures of procedure invariance; (2) preference is not constructed at choice time nor does it involve extra time (we show that the opposite is true); and (3) starlings' choices are not irrationally impulsive but are instead directly interpretable in terms of profitability ranking. Like all nonhuman research, our protocols examine decisions by experience rather than by description, and hence support the conjecture that irrationalities that prevail in research with humans may not be observed in decisions by experience protocols.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000841
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Tiago Monteiro
Marco Vasconcelos
Alex Kacelnik
spellingShingle Tiago Monteiro
Marco Vasconcelos
Alex Kacelnik
Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.
PLoS Biology
author_facet Tiago Monteiro
Marco Vasconcelos
Alex Kacelnik
author_sort Tiago Monteiro
title Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.
title_short Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.
title_full Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.
title_fullStr Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.
title_full_unstemmed Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.
title_sort choosing fast and simply: construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS Biology
issn 1544-9173
1545-7885
publishDate 2020-08-01
description The integration of normative and descriptive analyses of decision processes in humans struggles with the fact that measuring preferences by different procedures yields different rankings and that humans appear irrationally impulsive (namely, show maladaptive preference for immediacy). Failure of procedure invariance has led to the widespread hypothesis that preferences are constructed "on the spot" by cognitive evaluations performed at choice time, implying that choices should take extra time in order to perform the necessary comparisons. We examine this issue in experiments with starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and show that integrating normative and descriptive arguments is possible and may help reinterpreting human decision results. Our main findings are that (1) ranking alternatives through direct rating (response time) accurately predicts preference in choice, overcoming failures of procedure invariance; (2) preference is not constructed at choice time nor does it involve extra time (we show that the opposite is true); and (3) starlings' choices are not irrationally impulsive but are instead directly interpretable in terms of profitability ranking. Like all nonhuman research, our protocols examine decisions by experience rather than by description, and hence support the conjecture that irrationalities that prevail in research with humans may not be observed in decisions by experience protocols.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000841
work_keys_str_mv AT tiagomonteiro choosingfastandsimplyconstructionofpreferencesbystarlingsthroughparalleloptionvaluation
AT marcovasconcelos choosingfastandsimplyconstructionofpreferencesbystarlingsthroughparalleloptionvaluation
AT alexkacelnik choosingfastandsimplyconstructionofpreferencesbystarlingsthroughparalleloptionvaluation
_version_ 1721326734559674368