ArticleBehavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
Phantom decoys alter perceived missed opportunity costs and increase risky foraging decisions.
Article in Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Phantom decoys alter perceived missed opportunity costs and increase risky foraging decisions.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging decisions about risk and reward are driven by an option's perceived value relative to foregone alternatives, ie missed opportunity costs (MOCs). Information that alters perceptions about alternatives (ie perceived MOCs) should therefore influence animal behavior, yet perceived MOCs are overlooked in wildlife management and rarely manipulated. Phantom decoys are attractive but inaccessible options (ie missed opportunities) that change decision-making, seemingly by altering perceptions of MOCs. Using phantom decoys, we conducted 2 experiments to: (a) test if misinformation about MOCs alters risk versus reward foraging decisions; and (b) assess whether decoys can increase trapping rates by changing how animals trade off trap danger for rewards inside. Firstly, we conducted a giving-up density (GUD) experiment on wild house mice (
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.