title: Starlings uphold principles of economic rationality for delay and probability of reward.
abstract: Rationality principles are the bedrock of normative theories of decision-making in biology and microeconomics, but whereas in microeconomics, consistent choice underlies the notion of utility; in biology, the assumption of consistent selective pressures justifies modelling decision mechanisms as if they were designed to maximize fitness. In either case, violations of consistency contradict expectations and attract theoretical interest. Reported violations of rationality in non-humans include intransitivity (i.e. circular preferences) and lack of independence of irrelevant alternatives (changes in relative preference between options when embedded in different choice sets), but the extent to which these observations truly represent breaches of rationality is debatable. We tested both principles with starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), training subjects either with five options differing in food delay (exp. 1) or with six options differing in reward probability (exp. 2), before letting them choose repeatedly one option out of several binary and trinary sets of options. The starlings conformed to economic rationality on both tests, showing strong stochastic transitivity and no violation of the independence principle. These results endorse the rational choice and optimality approaches used in behavioural ecology, and highlight the need for functional and mechanistic enquiring when apparent violations of such principles are observed.
authors: Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
authors: Tiago
authors: T
authors: Monteiro
authors: Marco
authors: M
authors: Vasconcelos
authors: Alex
authors: A
authors: Kacelnik
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001522:Behavior, Animal; D012201:Reward; D046749:Starlings; D013269:Stochastic Processes
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Jun 22;270(1521):1271-6
references: 12816640
references: PLoS Biol. 2004 Dec;2(12):e402
references: 15550984
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Oct 22;276(1673):3655-61
references: 19625319
references: Behav Processes. 2012 Feb;89(2):115-20
references: 21945144
references: PLoS One. 2008 Jun 11;3(6):e2414
references: 18545670
references: J Theor Biol. 2007 Aug 7;247(3):471-9
references: 17467743
references: Anim Behav. 2000 Jan;59(1):253-257
references: 10640387
references: Nature. 2004 Aug 12;430(7001):778-81
references: 15306809
references: Anim Behav. 1999 Jul;58(1):59-66
references: 10413541
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Sep 29;362(1485):1531-43
references: 17428782
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jan 22;278(1703):307-12
references: 20702460
references: Behav Processes. 2008 Jul;78(3):313-34
references: 18423898
references: J Comp Psychol. 1993 Jun;107(2):208-15
references: 8370275
references: Science. 2011 Nov 18;334(6058):1000-2
references: 22096203
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Sep;72(2):235-49
references: 16812914
references: Science. 2006 Mar 17;311(5767):1613-5
references: 16543461
references: Biol Lett. 2007 Aug 22;3(4):365-7
references: 17535792
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Jul;48(1):133-43
references: 16812485
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 May;55(3):323-35
references: 16812638
references: J Comp Psychol. 1992 Dec;106(4):342-9
references: 1451416