Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 8, pp 1255–1265 | Cite as

When rate maximization is impulsive

Original Paper

Abstract

Although optimal foraging theory predicts that natural selection should favor animal behaviors that maximize long-term rate of gain, behaviors observed in the laboratory tend to be impulsive. In binary-choice experiments, despite the long-term gain of each alternative, animals favor short handling times. Most explanations of this behavior suggest that there is hidden rationality in impulsiveness. Instead, we suggest that simultaneous and mutually exclusive binary-choice encounters are often unnatural and thus immune to the effects of natural selection. Using a simulation of an imperfect forager, we show how a simple strategy (i.e., an intuitive model of animal behavior) that maximizes long-term rate of gain under natural conditions appears to be impulsive under operant laboratory conditions. We then show how the accuracy of this model can be verified in the laboratory by biasing subjects with a short pre-experiment ad libitum high-quality feeding period. We also show a similar behavioral mechanism results in diet preferences that are qualitatively consistent with the digestive rate model of foraging (i.e., foraging under digestive rate constraints).

Keywords

Impulsiveness Impulsivity Rationality Self-control Optimal foraging Simultaneous encounters 

Supplementary material

265_2010_940_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (271 kb)
(PDF 271 KB)

References

  1. Ainslie GW (1974) Impulse control in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 21(3):485–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainslie GW (1975) Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychol Bull 82(4):463–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews BW, Passino KM, Waite TA (2004) Foraging theory for decision-making system design: task-type choice. In: Proceedings of the 43rd IEEE conference on decision and control, Nasssau, Bahamas, vol 5, pp 4740–4745. doi:10.1109/CDC.2004.1429539 Google Scholar
  4. Bateson M, Kacelnik A (1996) Rate currencies and the foraging starling: the fallacy of the averages revisited. Behav Ecol 7(3):341–352. doi:10.1093/beheco/7.3.341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E (1992) Choice between delayed reinforcers in a discrete-trials schedule: the effect of deprivation level. Q J Exp Psychol 44(1):1–16Google Scholar
  6. Charnov EL (1973) Optimal foraging: some theoretical explorations. Dissertation, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid. Am Nat 110(971):141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giraldeau L-A, Livoreil B (1998) Game theory and social foraging. In: Dugatkin LA, Reeve HK (eds) Game theory and animal behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 16–37Google Scholar
  9. Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Green L, Fisher Jr EB, Perlow S, Sherman L (1981) Preference reversal and self-control: choice as a function of reward amount and delay. Behav Anal Lett 1:43–51Google Scholar
  11. Henly SE, Ostdiek A, Blackwell E, Knutie S, Dunlap AS, Stephens DW (2008) The discounting-by-interruptions hypothesis: model and experiment. Behav Ecol 19(1):154–162. doi:10.1093/beheco/arm110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirakawa H (1995) Diet optimization with a nutrient or toxin constraint. Theor Popul Biol 47(3):331–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirakawa H (1997a) Digestion-constrained optimal foraging in generalist mammalian herbivores. Oikos 78(1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirakawa H (1997b) How important is digestive quality? A correction of Verlinden and Wiley’s digestive rate model. Evol Ecol 11(2):249–251Google Scholar
  15. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1985) The choice of two prey types that minimizes the probability of starvation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17(2):135–141. doi:10.1007/BF00299245 Google Scholar
  16. McDiarmid CF, Rilling ME (1965) Reinforcement delay and reinforcement rate as determinants of schedule preference. Psychon Sci 2:195–196Google Scholar
  17. Monterosso J, Ainslie GW (1999) Beyond discounting: possible experimental models of impulse control. Psychopharmacology 146:339–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pulliam HR (1974) On the theory of optimal diets. Am Nat 108(959):59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52(2):137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Quaintenne G, van Gils JA, Bocher P, Dekinga A, Piersma T (2010) Diet selection in a molluscivore shorebird across Western Europe: does it show short- or long-term intake rate-maximization? J Anim Ecol 79(1):53–62. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01608.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Quijano N, Andrews BW, Passino KM (2006) Foraging theory for multizone temperature control. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 1(4):18–27. doi:10.1109/MCI.2006.329704 Google Scholar
  22. Rachlin H, Green L (1972) Commitment, choice and self-control. J Exp Anal Behav 17(1):15–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegel E, Rachlin H (1995) Soft commitment: self-control achieved by response persistence. J Exp Anal Behav 64(2):117–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sih A, Christensen B (2001) Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail? Anim Behav 61(2):379–390. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snyderman M (1983) Optimal prey selection: the effects of food deprivation. Behav Anal Lett 3:359–369Google Scholar
  27. Stephens DW (2002) Discrimination, discounting and impulsivity: a role for an informational constraint. Philos Trans R Soc B 357(1427):1527–1537. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Stephens DW, Anderson D (2001) The adaptive value of preference for immediacy: when shortsighted rules have farsighted consequences. Behav Ecol 12(3):330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stephens DW, McLinn CM (2003) Choice and context: test a simple short-term choice rule. Anim Behav 66(1):59–70. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stephens DW, Kerr B, Fernández-Juricic E (2004) Impulsiveness without discounting: the ecological rationality hypothesis. Proc R Soc B 271(1556):2459–2465. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2871 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. van Gils JA, de Rooij SR, van Belle J, van der Meer J, Dekinga A, Piersma T, Drent R (2005) Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. I. Prey choice. J Anim Ecol 74(1):105–119. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00903.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verlinden C, Wiley RH (1989) The constraints of digestive rate: an alternative model of diet selection. Evol Ecol 3(3):264–272. doi:10.1007/BF02270727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whelan CJ, Brown JS (2005) Optimal foraging and gut constraints: reconciling two schools of thought. Oikos 110(3):481–496. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal BiologyOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations