Irrationality in mate choice revealed by túngara frogs

Abstract

Mate choice models derive from traditional microeconomic decision theory and assume that individuals maximize their Darwinian fitness by making economically rational decisions. Rational choices exhibit regularity, whereby the relative strength of preferences between options remains stable when additional options are presented. We tested female frogs with three simulated males who differed in relative call attractiveness and call rate. In binary choice tests, females' preferences favored stimulus caller B over caller A; however, with the addition of an inferior "decoy" C, females reversed their preferences and chose A over B. These results show that the relative valuation of mates is not independent of inferior alternatives in the choice set and therefore cannot be explained with the rational choice models currently used in sexual selection theory.

Inconclusive Quantum Measurements and Decisions under Uncertainty

“…The evaluation without a decoy results in f (A) = 0.4 and f (B) = 0.6. In the presence of the decoy, we predict that the choice probabilities can be evaluated as Another example can be taken from the studies of the frog mate choice [45], where frog males have attraction calls differing in either low-frequency sound or call rate. The males with lower frequency calls are denoted as A, while those with high call rate, as B.…”

Implications of insect responses to supernormal visual releasing stimuli in intersexual communication and flower-visiting behaviour: A review

“…Animals, including human beings, tend to respond more strongly to stimuli that are associated with the highest relative rewards (Staddon, 1975;Lea & Ryan, 2015). This selection strategy, with the general rule "the more, the better", has its roots in resource-scarce environments and is especially apparent when above-average alternatives exist.…”

Asymmetric Dominance Effect with Multiple Decoys for Low- and High-Variance Lotteries

“…This systemic violation of rationality has been studied extensively in the literature on psychology, marketing, consumer behavior and decision making, and replicated using many different experimental settings. The effect has been observed when subjects are given real incentives (Herne, 1998(Herne, , 1999Simonson and Tversky, 1992); when choice sets consist of non-market alternatives (Bateman et al, 2008), policy alternatives (Herne, 1997), gambles (Herne, 1999;Wedell, 1991) or investment alternatives (Schwarzkopf, 2003); when the experimental design is withinsubject (Lehmann and Pan, 1994;Simonson, 1989;Wedell and Pettibone, 1996) or betweensubject (Dhar and Glazer, 1996;Highhouse, 1996) and even when the subjects are hummingbirds (Bateson et al, 2003), gray jays (Shafir et al, 2002), túngara frogs (Lea and Ryan, 2015) or amoeboid organisms (Latty and Beekman, 2011). Furthermore, in a field experiment conducted in a grocery store, Doyle et al (1999) have shown that the asymmetric dominance effect plays an important role in actual markets.…”