Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
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. PubMed
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. PubMed
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. CrossRef
Chernev, A. (2011). The dieter’s paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 178-183. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Oxford: Row, Peterson.
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Jiang, Y., & Lei, J. (2014). The effect of food toppings on calorie estimation and consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 63-69. CrossRef
Kahneman D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
List, J. A., (2002). Preference reversals of a different kind: The “more is less” phenomenon. American Economic Review, 92, 1636-1643. CrossRef
Norton, M., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 453-460. CrossRef
Ocean, G., & Smith, G. J. (1993). Social reward, conflict, and commitment: A theoretical model of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 321-339. CrossRef
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. PubMed
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.
Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thaler, R. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39-60. CrossRef
- More evidence that less is better: Sub-optimal choice in dogs
Rebecca J. Chase
David N. George
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia