title: Subjective costs drive overly patient foraging strategies in rats on an intertemporal foraging task.
abstract: Laboratory studies of decision making often take the form of two-alternative, forced-choice paradigms. In natural settings, however, many decision problems arise as stay/go choices. We designed a foraging task to test intertemporal decision making in rats via stay/go decisions. Subjects did not follow the rate-maximizing strategy of choosing only food items associated with short delays. Instead, rats were often willing to wait for surprisingly long periods, and consequently earned a lower rate of food intake than they might have by ignoring long-delay options. We tested whether foraging theory or delay discounting models predicted the behavior we observed but found that these models could not account for the strategies subjects selected. Subjects' behavior was well accounted for by a model that incorporated a cost for rejecting potential food items. Interestingly, subjects' cost sensitivity was proportional to environmental richness. These findings are at odds with traditional normative accounts of decision making but are consistent with retrospective considerations having a deleterious influence on decisions (as in the "sunk-cost" effect). More broadly, these findings highlight the utility of complementing existing assays of decision making with tasks that mimic more natural decision topologies.
authors: Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
authors: Andrew M
authors: AM
authors: Wikenheiser
authors: David W
authors: DW
authors: Stephens
authors: A David
authors: AD
authors: Redish
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001070:Appetitive Behavior; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003657:Decision Making; D008297:Male; D015233:Models, Statistical; D051381:Rats; D011916:Rats, Inbred F344; D013997:Time Factors
references: Neuron. 2009 Jul 16;63(1):119-26
references: 19607797
references: Psychol Bull. 1975 Jul;82(4):463-96
references: 1099599
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243-66
references: 16811440
references: Science. 2012 Apr 6;336(6077):95-8
references: 22491854
references: Curr Biol. 2007 Nov 6;17(21):R922-3
references: 17983569
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Aug;10(8):375-81
references: 16843041
references: PLoS One. 2009 Oct 20;4(10):e7362
references: 19841749
references: J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961 Sep;63:375-80
references: 13862515
references: Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jun 05;14(7):933-9
references: 21642973
references: Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007 Apr;191(3):507-20
references: 17031711
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jan 5;107(1):508-12
references: 19966285
references: Biol Lett. 2005 Jun 22;1(2):223-6
references: 17148172
references: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008 Dec;8(4):475-84
references: 19033242
references: Science. 2011 Nov 18;334(6058):1000-2
references: 22096203
references: Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):358-67
references: 10789200
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2001 Oct;27(4):354-72
references: 11676086
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Dec 7;271(1556):2459-65
references: 15590596
references: Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Apr;9(2):129-36
references: 1273796
references: Prog Neurobiol. 2008 Mar;84(3):284-315
references: 18207301
references: Neural Netw. 2002 Jun-Jul;15(4-6):617-34
references: 12371516