Economic Decision-Making in Parrots.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Krasheninnikova A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6105634 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Economic Decision-Making in Parrots.
Krasheninnikova Anastasia A Höner Friederike F O'Neill Laurie L Penna Elisabetta E von Bayern Auguste M P AMP
Scientific reports 20180822 1
Economic decision-making involves weighing up differently beneficial alternatives to maximise payoff. This sometimes requires the ability to forego one's desire for immediate satisfaction. This ability is considered cognitively challenging because it not only requires inhibiting impulses, but also evaluating expected outcomes in order to decide whether waiting is worthwhile. We tested four parrot species in a token exchange task. The subjects were first trained to exchange three types of tokens ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Hamilton’s rule [W. D. Hamilton, Am. Nat. 97, 354–356 (1963); W. D. Hamilton, J. Theor. Biol. 7, 17–52 (1964)] quantifies the central evolutionary ideas of inclusive fitness and kin selection into a simple algebraic relationship. Evidence consistent with Hamilton’s rule is found in many animal species. A drawback of investigating Hamilton’s rule in these species is that one can estimate whether a given behavior is consistent with the rule, but a direct examination of the exact cutoff for altruistic behavior predicted by Hamilton is almost impossible. However, to the degree that economic resources confer survival benefits in modern society, Hamilton’s rule may be applicable to economic decision-making, in which case techniques from experimental economics offer a way to determine this cutoff. We employ these techniques to examine whether Hamilton’s rule holds in human decision-making, by measuring the dependence between an experimental subject’s maximal willingness to pay for a gift of $50 to be given to someone else and the genetic relatedness of the subject to the gift’s recipient. We find good agreement with the predictions of Hamilton’s rule. Moreover, regression analysis of the willingness to pay versus genetic relatedness, the number of years living in the same residence, age, and sex shows that almost all the variation is explained by genetic relatedness. Similar but weaker results are obtained from hypothetical questions regarding the maximal risk to her own life that the subject is willing to take in order to save the recipient’s life.
| S-EPMC9169854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fluid intelligence decreases with age, yet evidence about age declines in decision-making quality is mixed: Depending on the study, older adults make worse, equally good, or even better decisions than younger adults. We propose a potential explanation for this puzzle, namely that age differences in decision performance result from the interplay between two sets of cognitive capabilities that impact decision making, one in which older adults fare worse (i.e., fluid intelligence) and one in which they fare better (i.e., crystallized intelligence). Specifically, we hypothesized that older adults' higher levels of crystallized intelligence can provide an alternate pathway to good decisions when the fluid intelligence pathway declines. The performance of older adults relative to younger adults therefore depends on the relative importance of each type of intelligence for the decision at hand. We tested this complementary capabilities hypothesis in a broad sample of younger and older adults, collecting a battery of standard cognitive measures and measures of economically important decision-making "traits"--including temporal discounting, loss aversion, financial literacy, and debt literacy. We found that older participants performed as well as or better than younger participants on these four decision-making measures. Structural equation modeling verified our hypothesis: Older participants' greater crystallized intelligence offset their lower levels of fluid intelligence for temporal discounting, financial literacy, and debt literacy, but not for loss aversion. These results have important implications for public policy and for the design of effective decision environments for older adults.
| S-EPMC4086863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:According to normative theories, reward-maximizing agents should have consistent preferences. Thus, when faced with alternatives A, B, and C, an individual preferring A to B and B to C should prefer A to C. However, it has been widely argued that humans can incur losses by violating this axiom of transitivity, despite strong evolutionary pressure for reward-maximizing choices. Here, adopting a biologically plausible computational framework, we show that intransitive (and thus economically irrational) choices paradoxically improve accuracy (and subsequent economic rewards) when decision formation is corrupted by internal neural noise. Over three experiments, we show that humans accumulate evidence over time using a "selective integration" policy that discards information about alternatives with momentarily lower value. This policy predicts violations of the axiom of transitivity when three equally valued alternatives differ circularly in their number of winning samples. We confirm this prediction in a fourth experiment reporting significant violations of weak stochastic transitivity in human observers. Crucially, we show that relying on selective integration protects choices against "late" noise that otherwise corrupts decision formation beyond the sensory stage. Indeed, we report that individuals with higher late noise relied more strongly on selective integration. These findings suggest that violations of rational choice theory reflect adaptive computations that have evolved in response to irreducible noise during neural information processing.
| S-EPMC4801289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOlder adults' decision quality is considered to be worse than that of younger adults. This age-related difference is often attributed to reductions in risk tolerance. Little is known about the circumstances that affect older adults' decisions and whether risk attitudes directly influence economic decisions. We measure the influence of risk attitudes on age-related differences in decision making in both nonsocial and social contexts.MethodsRisk attitudes and economic decision making were measured in 30 healthy older adults and 29 healthy younger adults.ResultsOlder adults report being less impulsive, sensation seeking and risk tolerant than younger adults. Age did not affect a measure of nonsocial economic decision making. Older adults were more likely to reject unfair divisions of money during an economic social-bargaining game and more likely to make equitable divisions of money during social-giving game. These age-related differences were determined in part by individuals' self-reported risk taking.DiscussionWe conclude that age-related differences in decision making are domain specific and that some social economic decision making is influenced by risk attitudes. Older adults are more risk avoidant, but this does not alter their willingness to wait for reward in a nonsocial context. Perceiving more risk is associated with an unwillingness to accept an unfair offer in social economic contexts and ultimately leads to poorer outcomes for older adults.
| S-EPMC3325085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is considerable evidence that human economic decision-making deviates from the predictions of expected utility theory (EUT) and that human performance conforms to EUT in many perceptual and motor decision tasks. It is possible that these results reflect a real difference in decision-making in the 2 domains but it is also possible that the observed discrepancy simply reflects typical differences in experimental design. We developed a motor task that is mathematically equivalent to choosing between lotteries and used it to compare how the same subject chose between classical economic lotteries and the same lotteries presented in equivalent motor form. In experiment 1, we found that subjects are more risk seeking in deciding between motor lotteries. In experiment 2, we used cumulative prospect theory to model choice and separately estimated the probability weighting functions and the value functions for each subject carrying out each task. We found no patterned differences in how subjects represented outcome value in the motor and the classical tasks. However, the probability weighting functions for motor and classical tasks were markedly and significantly different. Those for the classical task showed a typical tendency to overweight small probabilities and underweight large probabilities, and those for the motor task showed the opposite pattern of probability distortion. This outcome also accounts for the increased risk-seeking observed in the motor tasks of experiment 1. We conclude that the same subject distorts probability, but not value, differently in making identical decisions in motor and classical form.
| S-EPMC2669401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stable individual differences in cognitive motivation (i.e., the tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities) have been documented with self-report measures, yet convergent support for a trait-level construct is still lacking. In the present study, we use an innovative decision-making paradigm (COG-ED) to quantify the costs of cognitive effort, a metric of cognitive motivation, across two distinct cognitive domains (working memory and speech comprehension). We hypothesize that cognitive motivation operates similarly within individuals, regardless of domain. Specifically, we test whether individual differences in effort costs are stable across domains, even after controlling for other potential sources of shared individual variation. Conversely, we evaluate whether the costs of cognitive effort across domains may be better explained in terms of other relevant cognitive and personality-related constructs, such as working memory capacity or reward sensitivity.
| S-EPMC7862467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIt is common for individuals to engage in taxing cognitive activity for prolonged periods of time, resulting in cognitive fatigue that has the potential to produce significant effects in behaviour and decision making. We sought to examine whether cognitive fatigue modulates economic decision making.MethodsWe employed a between-subject manipulation design, inducing fatigue through 60 to 90 minutes of taxing cognitive engagement against a control group that watched relaxing videos for a matched period of time. Both before and after the manipulation, participants engaged in two economic decision making tasks (one for gains and one for losses). The analyses focused on two areas of economic decision making--preferences and choice strategies. Uncertainty preferences (risk and ambiguity) were quantified as premium values, defined as the degree and direction in which participants alter the valuation of the gamble in comparison to the certain option. The strategies that each participant engaged in were quantified through a choice strategy metric, which contrasts the degree to which choice behaviour relies upon available satisficing or maximizing information. We separately examined these metrics for alterations within both the gains and losses domains, through the two choice tasks.ResultsThe fatigue manipulation resulted in significantly greater levels of reported subjective fatigue, with correspondingly higher levels of reported effort during the cognitively taxing activity. Cognitive fatigue did not alter uncertainty preferences (risk or ambiguity) or informational strategies, in either the gains or losses domains. Rather, cognitive fatigue resulted in greater test-retest variability across most of our economic measures. These results indicate that cognitive fatigue destabilizes economic decision making, resulting in inconsistent preferences and informational strategies that may significantly reduce decision quality.
| S-EPMC4521815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Animals' attitudes to risk are profoundly influenced by metabolic state (hunger and baseline energy stores). Specifically, animals often express a preference for risky (more variable) food sources when below a metabolic reference point (hungry), and safe (less variable) food sources when sated. Circulating hormones report the status of energy reserves and acute nutrient intake to widespread targets in the central nervous system that regulate feeding behaviour, including brain regions strongly implicated in risk and reward based decision-making in humans. Despite this, physiological influences per se have not been considered previously to influence economic decisions in humans. We hypothesised that baseline metabolic reserves and alterations in metabolic state would systematically modulate decision-making and financial risk-taking in humans. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We used a controlled feeding manipulation and assayed decision-making preferences across different metabolic states following a meal. To elicit risk-preference, we presented a sequence of 200 paired lotteries, subjects' task being to select their preferred option from each pair. We also measured prandial suppression of circulating acyl-ghrelin (a centrally-acting orexigenic hormone signalling acute nutrient intake), and circulating leptin levels (providing an assay of energy reserves). We show both immediate and delayed effects on risky decision-making following a meal, and that these changes correlate with an individual's baseline leptin and changes in acyl-ghrelin levels respectively. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:We show that human risk preferences are exquisitely sensitive to current metabolic state, in a direction consistent with ecological models of feeding behaviour but not predicted by normative economic theory. These substantive effects of state changes on economic decisions perhaps reflect shared evolutionarily conserved neurobiological mechanisms. We suggest that this sensitivity in human risk-preference to current metabolic state has significant implications for both real-world economic transactions and for aberrant decision-making in eating disorders and obesity.
| S-EPMC2886827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent research in neuroeconomics suggests that social economic decision-making may be best understood as a dual-systems process, integrating the influence of deliberative and affective subsystems. However, most of this research has focused on young adults and it remains unclear whether our current models extend to healthy aging. To address this question, we investigated the behavioral and neural basis of simple economic decisions in 18 young and 20 older healthy adults. Participants made decisions which involved accepting or rejecting monetary offers from human and non-human (computer) partners in an Ultimatum Game, while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The partners' proposals involved splitting an amount of money between the two players, and ranged from $1 to $5 (from a $10 pot). Relative to young adults, older participants expected more equitable offers and rejected moderately unfair offers ($3) to a larger extent. Imaging results revealed that, relative to young participants, older adults had higher activations in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) when receiving unfair offers ($1-$3). Age group moderated the relationship between left DLPFC activation and acceptance rates of unfair offers. In contrast, older adults showed lower activation of bilateral anterior insula in response to unfair offers. No age group difference was observed when participants received fair ($5) offers. These findings suggest that healthy aging may be associated with a stronger reliance on computational areas subserving goal maintenance and rule shifting (DLPFC) during interactive economic decision-making. Consistent with a well-documented "positivity effect", older age may also decrease recruitment of areas involved in emotion processing and integration (anterior insula) in the face of social norm violation.
| S-EPMC3358414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Much publicity has been given to the fact that people's economic decisions often deviate from the rational predictions of standard economic models. In the classic ultimatum game, for example, most people turn down financial gains by rejecting unequal monetary splits. The present study points to neglected individual differences in this debate. After participants played the ultimatum game we tested for individual differences in cognitive control capacity of the most and least economic responders. The key finding was that people who were higher in cognitive control, as measured by behavioral (Go/No-Go performance) and neural (No-Go N2 amplitude) markers, did tend to behave more in line with the standard models and showed increased acceptance of unequal splits. Hence, the cognitively highest scoring decision-makers were more likely to maximize their monetary payoffs and adhere to the standard economic predictions. Findings question popular claims with respect to the rejection of standard economic models and the irrationality of human economic decision-making.
| S-EPMC3212542 | biostudies-literature