Literature DB >> 25832189

Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) exhibit the decoy effect in a perceptual discrimination task.

Audrey E Parrish1, Theodore A Evans, Michael J Beran.   

Abstract

The asymmetric dominance effect (or decoy effect) is a form of context-dependent choice bias in which the probability of choosing one of two options is impacted by the introduction of a third option, also known as the decoy. Decoy effects are documented widely within the human consumer choice literature, and even extend to preference testing within nonhuman animals. Here, we extended this line of research to a perceptual discrimination task with rhesus monkeys to determine whether decoy stimuli would impact size judgments of rectangular stimuli. In a computerized task, monkeys attempted to choose the larger of two rectangles that varied in size and orientation (horizontally or vertically oriented). In probe trials, a third stimulus (the decoy) was presented that was smaller than the other two rectangles but matched the orientation of one of them. On half of the probe trials, the presented decoy matched the orientation of the larger stimulus, and on the other half, the decoy matched the orientation of the smaller stimulus. Monkeys rarely selected the decoy stimulus. However, their performance (selection of the largest rectangle) increased relative to the baseline trials (with only two choices) when the decoy was congruent in its orientation with the largest rectangle, but decreased relative to baseline when the decoy was incongruent with the largest rectangle. Thus, a decoy stimulus impacted monkeys' perceptual choice behavior even when it was not a viable choice option itself. These results are explained with regard to comparative evaluation mechanisms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25832189      PMCID: PMC4470728          DOI: 10.3758/s13414-015-0885-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  20 in total

1.  Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice.

Authors: 
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  2000-03

2.  The NASA/LRC Computerized Test System.

Authors:  W K Richardson; D A Washburn; W D Hopkins; E S Savage-Rumbaugh; D M Rumbaugh
Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput       Date:  1990

3.  A study of visual illusions in the monkey.

Authors:  K E DOMINGUEZ
Journal:  J Genet Psychol       Date:  1954-09       Impact factor: 1.509

4.  Comparison-induced decoy effects.

Authors:  Jessica M Choplin; John E Hummel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-03

5.  Working and waiting for better rewards: self-control in two monkey species (Cebus apella and Macaca mulatta).

Authors:  Theodore A Evans; Bonnie M Perdue; Audrey E Parrish; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 1.777

6.  The impact of phantom decoys on choices in cats.

Authors:  Daniele Scarpi
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 3.084

7.  Fading perceptual resemblance: a path for rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) to conceptual matching?

Authors:  J David Smith; Timothy M Flemming; Joseph Boomer; Michael J Beran; Barbara A Church
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2013-09-25

8.  Monkeys exhibit prospective memory in a computerized task.

Authors:  Theodore A Evans; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2012-08-09

9.  Do rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) perceive the Zöllner illusion?

Authors:  Christian Agrillo; Audrey E Parrish; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-08

10.  State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice.

Authors:  Cynthia Schuck-Paim; Lorena Pompilio; Alex Kacelnik
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2004-11-23       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  9 in total

1.  Response-time data provide critical constraints on dynamic models of multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice.

Authors:  Nathan J Evans; William R Holmes; Jennifer S Trueblood
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-06

2.  Context-effect bias in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.): exploring decoy influences in a value-based food choice task.

Authors:  Marco Marini; Chiara Boschetti; Serena Gastaldi; Elsa Addessi; Fabio Paglieri
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 2.899

Review 3.  Conditional valuation for combinations of goods in primates.

Authors:  Hui-Kuan Chung; Carlos Alós-Ferrer; Philippe N Tobler
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  The Effect of Expected Value on Attraction Effect Preference Reversals.

Authors:  George D Farmer; Paul A Warren; Wael El-Deredy; Andrew Howes
Journal:  J Behav Decis Mak       Date:  2016-12-19

5.  Irrational behavior in C. elegans arises from asymmetric modulatory effects within single sensory neurons.

Authors:  Shachar Iwanir; Rotem Ruach; Eyal Itskovits; Christian O Pritz; Eduard Bokman; Alon Zaslaver
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Bumblebees retrieve only the ordinal ranking of foraging options when comparing memories obtained in distinct settings.

Authors:  Cwyn Solvi; Yonghe Zhou; Yunxiao Feng; Yuyi Lu; Mark Roper; Li Sun; Rebecca J Reid; Lars Chittka; Andrew B Barron; Fei Peng
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 8.713

7.  The development of the asymmetrically dominated decoy effect in young children.

Authors:  Shanshan Zhen; Rongjun Yu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value.

Authors:  Andrew Howes; Paul A Warren; George Farmer; Wael El-Deredy; Richard L Lewis
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  A map of decoy influence in human multialternative choice.

Authors:  Tsvetomira Dumbalska; Vickie Li; Konstantinos Tsetsos; Christopher Summerfield
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 11.205

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.