heory (RSFT), which, unlike expected utility theory, does not assume that animals are trying to maximize expected utility. Instead, RSFT assumes that animals are trying to maximize the probability of reaching a goal -- in this case, finding enough food to survive the night. With this starting assumption, Stephens showed that in addition to expected value, both the variability in returns from the
... [Show full abstract] different options and the animal' s aspiration level are crucial factors determining whether one option or the other is more likely to satisfy an animal' s needs. Now a group of psychologists have turned to this biological literature in the hope of resolving some of the apparent irrationalities in human reasoning. Rode et al. provide an example of the progress that can be made through this interdisciplinary approach. Rode et al. hypothesize that the human mind has been designed by natural selection to Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 251-252 (1999). take all three factors (expected value, va