ArticleScientific reports2024
A reward self-bias leads to more optimal foraging for ourselves than others.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Stochastic choice drives variability in patch foraging decisions in humans and rats.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Continuous dynamics of cooperation and competition in social decision-making.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Social environment-based opportunity costs dictate when people leave social interactions.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- A cost-benefit framework for prosocial motivation-Advantages and challenges.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.