Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 1019–1022

Suboptimal choice by dogs: when less is better than more

Short Communication

Abstract

The less is more effect, an example of an affect heuristic, can be shown in humans when they give greater value to a set of six baseball cards in perfect condition, than to the same set of six perfect cards together with three additional cards each with some value but in fair condition. A similar effect has been reported in monkeys which will eat both grapes and cucumbers but prefer grapes, when they prefer a single grape over a single grape plus a slice of cucumber. In the present experiment, we tested the less is more effect with a nonprimate but social species, dogs. We used dogs that would eat a slice of carrot and a slice of cheese but preferred the cheese. When we then gave them a choice between a slice of cheese and a slice of cheese plus a slice of carrot, most dogs preferred the single slice of cheese. Thus, the less is more effect appears to occur in several species.

Keywords

Affect heuristic Less is more Incentive motivation Value Choice Dogs 

References

  1. Becker GS (1976) The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Freidin E, Kacelnik A (2011) Rational choice, context dependence, and the value of information in European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Science 334:1000–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hsee CK (1996) The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hsee CK (1998) Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J Behav Decis Making 11:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kralik JD, Xu ER, Knight EJ, Khan SA, Levine JW (2012) When less is more: evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. PLoS ONE 7:e46240. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046240 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Persky J (1995) Retrospectives: the ethology of homo economicus. J Econ Perspect 9:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations