Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39500761›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

A reward self-bias leads to more optimal foraging for ourselves than others.

Luis Sebastian Contreras-Huerta, M Andrea Pisauro, Svenja Küchenhoff, Arno Gekiere, Campbell Le Heron, Patricia L Lockwood, Matthew A J Apps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Luis Sebastian Contreras-HuertaDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK. sebastian.contreras@uai.cl.
M Andrea PisauroCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Svenja KüchenhoffWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, FMRIB, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Arno GekiereDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK.
Campbell Le HeronDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Patricia L LockwoodDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK.
Matthew A J AppsDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK. m.a.j.apps@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo BECAS CHILE/2016 - 72170287Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R010668/2Medical Research Council MR/P014097/2Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 223264/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People are self-biased for rewards. We place a higher value on rewards if we receive them than if other people do. However, existing work has ignored one of the most powerful theorems from behavioural ecology of how animals seek resources in everyday life, the Marginal Value Theorem (MVT), which accounts for optimal behaviour for maximising resources intake rate. Does this self-bias help humans maximise rewards when foraging for their own benefit compared to foraging for the benefit of others? Participants had to decide when to leave patches where reward intake was gradually depleting, in environments with different average reward rates. Half of the time participants foraged for themselves, and in the other half they collected rewards for an anonymous stranger. The optimal MVT derived solution states people should leave when the instantaneous reward intake in a patch equals the average rate in an environment. Across two studies, people were more optimal when foraging for self, showing a reduced sensitivity to instantaneous rewards when foraging for other. Autistic traits were linked to reduced sensitivity to reward rates when foraging for self but not for other. These results highlight that the self-bias may be adaptive, helping people maximise reward intake.

Indexed as

RewardAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39500761
PMCPMC11538449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.