Skip to main content
Log in

Preference for oddity: uniqueness heuristic or hierarchical choice process?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditional economic theories assume decision makers in multialternative choice tasks “assign” a value to each option and then express rational preferences. Here, I report an apparent violation of such rationality in gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). I tested the jays’ preference in a quaternary choice task where three options were the same color and the fourth option was a different color. All options offered an identical food reward and so the strictly rational expectation was that subjects would choose the odd-colored option in 25% of choices. In clear disagreement, every subject chose the odd option more frequently than expected. I speculate as to how this surprising preference for oddity might have been ecologically rational: by using a unique-choice heuristic, the jays might have been able to bypass a deliberative phase of the decision process and devote more attention to scanning for predators. Alternatively, it is conceivable that the jays did not prefer oddity per se. Instead, they might have used a hierarchical process, assigning options to color categories and then choosing between categories. If so, their behavior matches expectation after all (on average, subjects chose the odd option 50% of the time). It should be straightforward to test these competing hypotheses. The current results can be viewed as a new example of how simple mechanisms sometimes produce economically puzzling yet ecologically rational decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ariely D, Levav J (2000) Sequential choice in group settings: taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. J Consum Res 27:279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson M, Healy SD, Hurly TA (2002) Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour. Anim Behav 63:587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson M, Healy SD, Hurly TA (2003) Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1271–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 57:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen JD (2006) The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychol Rev 113:700–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cain ME, Saucier DA, Bardo MT (2005) Novelty seeking and drug use: contribution of an animal model. Exp Clin Pychopharmacol 13:367–375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R, Kamil AC (2000) The cost of limited attention in blue jays. Behav Ecol 11:502–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagan LC, Santos LR, Bloom P (2007) The origins of cognitive dissonance: evidence from children and monkeys. Psychol Sci 18:978–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox RA, Millam JR (2007) Novelty and individual differences influence neophobia in orange-winged Amazon parrots (Amazona amazonica). Appl Anim Behav Sci 104:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, the ABC Research Group (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM, Steer MD (2007a) Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 362:1531–1543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM, Steer MD (2007b) Violations of transitivity under fitness maximization. Biol Lett 3:365–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hurly TA, Oseen MD (1999) Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds. Anim Behav 58:59–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson JMC, Gigerenzer G (2005a) Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: where psychologists and biologists might meet. Behav Processes 69:97–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson JMC, Gigerenzer G (2005b) Connecting behavioural biologists and psychologists: clarifying distinctions and suggestions for further work. Behav Processes 69:159–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaby U, Lind J (2003) What limits predator detection in blue tits (Parus caeruleus): posture, task or orientation? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:534–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik A, Marsh B (2002) Cost can increase preference in starlings. Anim Behav 63:245–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1996) On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychol Rev 103:582–591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Jennions MD, Houde A (2007) Evolution of frequency-dependent mate choice: keeping up with fashion trends. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274:1317–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo CC, Wang XJ (2006) Cortico-basal ganglia circuit mechanism for a decision threshold in reaction time tasks. Nat Neurosci 9:956–963

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marples NM, Roper TJ, Harper DGC (1998) Responses of wild birds to novel prey: evidence of dietary conservatism. Oikos 83:161–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevai AL, Waite TA, Passino KP (2007) State-dependent choice and ecological rationality. J Theor Biol 247:471–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff R, McKoon G (2008) The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput 20:873–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff R, Cherian A, Segraves M (2003) A comparison of macaque behavior and superior colliculus neuronal activity to predictions from models of two-choice decisions. J Neurophysiol 90:1392–1407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Read D, Loewenstein G (1995) Diversification bias: explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. J Exp Psychol 1:34–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychol Rev 108:370–392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schuck-Paim C, Kacelnik A (2007) Choice processes in multialternative decision making. Behav Ecol 18:541–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir S (1994) Intransitivity of preferences in honey-bees: support for comparative-evaluation of foraging options. Anim Behav 48:55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir S, Waite TA, Smith B (2002) Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:180–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1990) Invariants of human behavior. Annu Rev Psychol 41:1–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Kerr B, Fernandez-Juricic E (2004) Impulsiveness without discounting: the ecological rationality hypothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:2459–2465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS (2006) SPSS version 15.0. SPSS, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland D, Ouellet H (1993) Gray jay. In: Poole A, Stettenheim P, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, no. 40. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland D, Waite TA (2001) Does initial suppression of allofeeding in small jays help to conceal their nests? Can J Zool 79:2128–2146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugrue LP, Corrado GS, Newsome WT (2005) Choosing the greater of two goods: neural currencies for valuation and decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:363–375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Todd PM, Gigerenzer G (2003) Bounding rationality to the world. J Econ Psychol 24:143–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manage Sci 39:1179–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite TA (2001a) Intransitive preferences by hoarding gray jays. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:116–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite TA (2001b) Background context and decision making in hoarding gray jays. Behav Ecol 12:318–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite TA (2002) Interruptions improve choice performance in gray jays: prolonged information processing versus minimization of costly errors. Anim Cogn 5:209–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waite TA, Campbell LG (2006) Controlling the false discovery rate and increasing statistical power in ecological studies. EcoScience 13:439–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite TA, Passino KM (2006) Paradoxical preferences when options are identical. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:777–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite TA, Strickland D (2006) Climate change and the demographic demise of a hoarding bird living on the edge. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273:2809–2813

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank A. D’Orazio, M. Spathelf, and especially P. M. Todd and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript; Ian Hamilton for insightful discussion; Seven Main, Soul Sistas, and Stauf’s for providing pleasant workspace; and D. Strickland for ongoing collaboration. The experiment complied with the laws of Canada and was done with approval of the Ohio State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, protocol 00A0148.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas A. Waite.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waite, T.A. Preference for oddity: uniqueness heuristic or hierarchical choice process?. Anim Cogn 11, 707–713 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0162-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0162-3

Keywords

Navigation