Risk-sensitive foraging: the effect of relative variability

By Sharoni Shafir. 2000

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Small Animals, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3aa7a3b3fb4813860bfea780bdaf049f8bbd3921

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Ann-Renée Blais
2. Elke U. Weber
3. R. Cartar

In Small Animals

1. Ann-Renée Blais
2. Elke U. Weber

In Social Psychology

1. Ann-Renée Blais
2. Elke U. Weber
3. Glenn W. Harrison
4. Marcin Zajenkowski
5. Gilles E. Gignac

Citations in the corpus

• Sex-specific behavior by a monomorphic seabird represents risk partitioning (2010, background): “tivity than absolute variability (Shafir 2000), and is widely used”
• Amygdalin in almond nectar and pollen – facts and possible roles (2003, background): “1999) and, in general, animals prefer constant amounts of food to variable ones, even if the mean amounts are similar (Shafir 2000).”
• Learning and the Economics of Small Decisions (2013, background): “Shafir (2000) reviews experimental studies of animal risk attitude in a binary choice task.”
• Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation. (2004, methodology): “…negative components separately and subsequently combine their evaluations of the two components, as modeled by cumulative prospect theory (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). similar meta-analysis of animal data by Shafir (2000), who found the CV to be a better predictor of risk sensitivity than variance.”
• Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis) (2001, background): “Rather, models that incorporate psychophysical mechanisms may prove more appropriate, at least in explaining animal decision making (Wedell 1991; Bateson and Kacelnik 1998; Shafir et al. 1999; Shafir 2000 ).”
• Risk-averse inflorescence departure in hummingbirds and bumble bees: could plants benefit from variable nectar volumes? (2002, background): “Empty flowers were included in an effort to increase the level of variation (CV=96), since the coefficient of variation is the best predictor of risk-sensitivity (Shafir 2000).”