Skip Navigation

American Zoologist 1996 36(4):402-434; doi:10.1093/icb/36.4.402
© 1996 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KACELNIK, A.
Right arrow Articles by BATESON, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Risky Theories—The Effects of Variance on Foraging Decisions1

ALEX KACELNIK and MELISSA BATESON
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom

This paper concerns the response of foraging animals to variability in rate of gain, or risk. Both the empirical and theoretical literatures relevant to this issue are reviewed. The methodology and results from fifty-nine studies in which animals are required to choose between foraging options differing in the variances in the rate of gain available are tabulated. We found that when risk is generated by variability in the amount of reward, animals are most frequently risk-averse and sometimes indifferent to risk, although in some studies preference depends on energy budget. In contrast, when variability is in delay to reward, animals are universally risk-prone. A range of functional, descriptive and mechanistic accounts for these findings is described, none of which alone is capable of accommodating all aspects of the data. Risk-sensitive foraging theory provides the only currently available explanation for why energy budget should affect preference. An information-processing model that incorporates Weber's law provides the only general explanation for why animals should be risk-averse with variability in amount and risk-prone with delay. A theory based on the mechanisms of associative learning explains quantitative aspects of risk-proneness for delay; specifically why the delay between choice and reward should have a stronger impact on preference than delays between the reward and subsequent choice. It also explains why animals should appear to commit the "fallacy of the average," maximising the expected ratio of amount of reward over delay to reward when computing rates rather than the ratio of expected amount over expected delay. We conclude that only a fusion of functional and mechanistic thinking will lead to progress in the understanding of animal decision making.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.