Advertisement

Learning & Behavior

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 462–471 | Cite as

More evidence that less is better: Sub-optimal choice in dogs

  • Rebecca J. Chase
  • David N. GeorgeEmail author
Article

Abstract

The less-is-better effect is a preference for the lesser of two alternatives sometimes observed when they are evaluated separately. For example, a dinner service of 24 intact pieces might be judged to be more valuable than a 40-piece dinner service containing nine broken pieces. Pattison and Zentall (Animal Cognition, 17: 1019-1022, 2014) reported similar sub-optimal choice behavior in dogs using a simultaneous choice procedure. Given a choice between a single high-value food item (cheese) or an equivalent high-value item plus a lower-value food item (carrot), their dogs chose the individual item. In a subsequent test, the dogs preferred two high-value items to a single high-value item, suggesting that avoidance of multiple items did not cause the sub-optimal choice behavior. In two experiments, we replicated Pattison and Zentall’s procedure while including additional controls. In Experiment 1, habituation of neophobia for multiple items was controlled for by intermixing the two types of test trial within a single experimental session. In Experiment 2, we controlled for avoidance of heterogeneous rewards by including test trials in which a choice was offered between the combination of items and a single low-value item. In both experiments we observed sub-optimal choice behavior which could not be explained by either of these putative mechanisms. Our results, as well as those of Pattison and Zentall, are consistent with the suggestion that dogs’ assessment of the total value of multiple items is based, at least partly, on their average quality.

Keywords

Comparative cognition Decision making Choice Affective heuristic Dogs 

References

  1. Addessi, E., Crescimbene, L., & Visalberghi, E. (2008). Food and token quantity discrimination in capuchin monkeys (Cebus paella). Animal Cognition, 11, 275-282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrillo, C., Dadda, M., & Bisazza, A. (2007). Quantity discrimination in female mosquitofish. Animal Cognition, 10, 63-70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrillo, C., Dadda, M., Serena, G., & Bisazza, A. (2008). Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimination of fish quantity in female mosquitofish. Animal Cognition, 11, 495-503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. R., Awazu, S., & Fujita, K. (2000). Can squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) learn self-control? A study using food array selection tests and reverse-reward contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 87-97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, J. M., Skivik, J., & Jordan, K. E. (2011). Tracking food quantity by coyotes (Canis latrans). Behavioural Processes, 88, 72-75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, J. M., Morath, J., Rodzon, K. S., & Jordan, K. E. (2012). A shared system of representation governing quantity discrimination in canids. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 387.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Beran, M. J. (2001). Summation and numerosity judgements of sequentially presented sets of items by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 181-191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Beran, M. J., Evans, T. A., & Ratliff, C. L. (2009). Perception of food amounts by Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): The role of magnitude, contiguity, and wholeness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35, 516-524.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Beran, M. J., Ratliff, C. L., & Evans, T. A. (2009). Natural choice in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Perceptual and temporal effects on selective value. Learning and Motivation, 40, 186-196.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Berna, M. J., Evans, T. A., & Harris, E. H. (2008). Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees based on the number, size, contour length and visibility of items. Animal Behavior, 75, 1793-1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Call, J. (2000). Estimating and operating on discrete quantities in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, 136-147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chernev, A. (2011). The dieter’s paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 178-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1995). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819-829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Oxford: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  17. Gazes, R. P., Billas, A. R., & Schmitt, V. (2017). Impact of stimulus format and reward value on quantity discrimination in capuchin and squirrel monkeys. Learning & Behavior. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-017-0295-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerard, H. B., & Mathewson, G. C., (1966). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 278-287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanus, D., & Call, J. (2007). Discrete quantity judgements in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): The effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 241-249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, 247-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, 107-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang, Y., & Lei, J. (2014). The effect of food toppings on calorie estimation and consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 63-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan, K. E., & Brannon, E. M. (2006). Weber’s law influences numerical representationsin rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Animal Cognition, 9, 159-172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401-405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelly, E. M. (2016). Counting on your friends: The role of social environment on quantity discrimination. Behavioural Processes, 128, 9-16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kralik, J. D., Xu, E. R., Knight, E. J., Khan, S. A., & Levine, W. J. (2012). When less is more: Evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. PLoS ONE, 7, e46240.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. List, J. A., (2002). Preference reversals of a different kind: The “more is less” phenomenon. American Economic Review, 92, 1636-1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603–610.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2016). What counts for dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in a quantity discrimination task? Behavioural Processes, 122, 90-97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Norton, M., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 453-460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ocean, G., & Smith, G. J. (1993). Social reward, conflict, and commitment: A theoretical model of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 321-339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Panteleeva, S., Reznikova, Z., & Vygonyailova, O. (2013). Quantity judgements in the context of risk/reward decision making in striped field mice: First “count”, then hunt. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Pattison, K. F., & Zentall, T. R. (2014). Suboptimal choice by dogs: When less is better than more. Animal Cognition, 17, 1019-1022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Prato-Previde, E., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2008). Is your choice my choice? The owner’s effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Animal Cognition, 11, 167-174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rumbaugh, D. M., Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Hegel, M. T. (1987). Summation in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 107-115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Silderberg, A., Widholm, J. J., Bresler, D., Fujita, K., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Natural choice in nonhuman primates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 215-228.Google Scholar
  38. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Thaler, R. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uller, C., Jaeger, R, Guidry, G., & Martin, C. (2003). Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: Rudiments of number in an amphibian. Animal Cognition, 6, 105-112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Utrata, E., Virányi, Z, & Range, F. (2012). Quantity discrimination in wolves (Canis lupus). Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Ward, C., & Smuts, B. B. (2007). Quantity-based judgements in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Animal Cognition, 10, 71-80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Zentall, T. R., (2015). When animals misbehave: Analogs of human biases and suboptimal choice. Behavioural Processes, 112, 3-13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Zentall, T. R., Laude, J. R., Case, J. P., & Daniels, C. W. (2014). Less means more for pigeons but not always. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 1623-1628.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology, School of Life SciencesUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations