A Phantom Decoy Shifts Wild Forager Decisions in a Natural Environment
Clicks: 1
ID: 315367
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #34 of 46 articles by views in behavioral ecology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Seemingly irrelevant options, such as inferior or unavailable “decoys”, can shift decisions people and captive animals make in simplified environments. But do decoys influence animals in messy, complex, natural environments? Here, we explored this question in a foraging context, a process involving countless daily decisions that ultimately underpin animal fitness. We tested whether a “phantom decoy” (inaccessible but preferred food) influenced food choice of free-ranging swamp wallabies across three scenarios; Binary—two available, equally preferred foods differing nutritionally; Phantom—two available foods plus an inaccessible phantom decoy nutritionally similar to one; Trinary—all three foods available. We analysed data using a new approach that overcame cross-level bias, when individual choices shift in opposite directions leading to no overall shifts. We found that the phantom decoy made wallabies more likely to switch their choice away from the nutritionally similar food—a net reactance effect. Unexpectedly, when all foods were available, wallaby choices appeared random and haphazard, suggesting cognitive overload. These findings demonstrate that decoys can shape ecologically relevant foraging decisions, so their influence is not simply an inadvertent byproduct of stylised simplistic settings. As such, traditional foraging models may better predict real-world foraging decisions by incorporating decoy effects.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7162865095
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Gabby Jarvis, Peter B. Banks, Tanya Latty, Malcolm Possell, Cristian Gabriel Orlando, Clare McArthur |
| Journal | behavioral ecology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/beheco/arag059
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.