Less means more for pigeons but not always

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Thomas R. Zentall (1) (3)
  Jennifer R. Laude (1)
  Jacob P. Case (1)
  Carter W. Daniels (2)
  
• 关键词：Affective heuristic ; Less ; is ; more effect ; Suboptimal choice ; Paradoxical choice ; Level of motivation ; Pigeons
• 刊名：Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：December 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：21
• 期：6
• 页码：1623-1628
• 全文大小：413 KB
• 参考文献：1. Chernev, A. (2011). The dieter鈥檚 paradox. / Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 178鈥?83. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.08.002 CrossRef
  2. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgment of risks and benefits. / Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1鈥?7. CrossRef
  3. Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247鈥?57. CrossRef
  4. Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. / Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107鈥?21. CrossRef
  5. Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. / Psychological Bulletin, 125, 576鈥?90. CrossRef
  6. Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. A. (2004). Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. / Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 680鈥?95. CrossRef
  7. Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. A. (2010). General evaluability theory. / Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 343鈥?55. CrossRef
  8. Kralik, J. D., Xu, E. R., Knight, E. J., Khan, S. A., & Levine, J. W. (2012). When less is more: Evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. / PLoS ONE, 7, e46240. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0046240 CrossRef
  9. Laude, J. R., Pattison, K. F., & Zentall, T. R. (2012). Hungry pigeons make suboptimal choices, less hungry pigeons do not. / Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 884鈥?91. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0282-2 CrossRef
  10. List, J. A. (2002). Reversals of a different kind: The 鈥渕ore is less鈥?phenomenon. / American Economic Review, 92, 1636鈥?643. CrossRef
  11. MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966). On the optimal use of a patchy environment. / American Naturalist, 100, 33鈥?6. CrossRef
  12. Pattison, K. F., & Zentall, T. R. (in press). Suboptimal choice by dogs: When less is better than more. / Animal Cognition. doi:10.1007/s10071-014-0735-2
  13. Pelham, B. W., & Neter, E. (1995). The effect of motivation of judgment depends on the difficulty of the judgment. / Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 581鈥?94. CrossRef
  14. Pelham, B. W., Sumarta, T. T., & Myaskovsky, L. (1994). The easy path from many to much: The numerosity heuristic. / Cognitive Psychology, 26, 103鈥?33. doi:10.1006/cogp.1994.1004 CrossRef
  15. Poling, A., Nickel, M., & Alling, K. (1990). Free birds aren鈥檛 fat: Weight gain in captured wild pigeons maintained under laboratory conditions. / Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 423鈥?24. CrossRef
  16. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. / Psychological Science, 12, 185鈥?90. CrossRef
  17. Shapiro, M. S., Siller, S., & Kacelnik, A. (2008). Simultaneous and sequential choice as a function of reward delay and magnitude: Normative, descriptive and process-based models tested in the European Starling ( / Sturnus vulgaris). / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior, 34, 75鈥?3. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.75
  18. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), / Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397鈥?20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
  19. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit- formation. / Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459鈥?82. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Thomas R. Zentall (1) (3)
  Jennifer R. Laude (1)
  Jacob P. Case (1)
  Carter W. Daniels (2)
  
  1. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
  3. Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 40506, USA
  2. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
  
• ISSN：1531-5320

文摘

When humans are asked to judge the value of a set of objects of excellent quality, they often give this set higher value than those same objects with the addition of some of lesser quality. This is an example of the affect heuristic, often referred to as the less-is-more effect. Monkeys and dogs, too, have shown this suboptimal effect. But in the present experiments, normally hungry pigeons chose optimally: a preferred food plus a less--preferred food over a more-preferred food alone. In Experiment 2, however, pigeons on a less-restricted diet showed the suboptimal less-is-more effect. Choice on control trials indicated that the effect did not result from the novelty of two food items versus one. The effect in the less-food-restricted pigeons appears to result from the devaluation of the combination of the food items by the presence of the less-preferred food item. The reversal of the effect under greater food restriction may occur because, as motivation increases, the value of the less-preferred food increases faster than the value of the more-preferred food, thus decreasing the difference in value between the two foods.