Have you ever experienced the frustration of waiting in a long line for your favorite ice cream flavor, only to find out that it’s sold out? In the field of behavioral economics, researchers have discovered that people tend to make predictable second choices when their desired item is unavailable. This phenomenon, known as the phantom decoy effect, can be used to influence consumer behavior and encourage the purchase of certain products.
Interestingly, this effect is not limited to humans. In a recent study published in Insectes Sociaux, researchers investigated whether honeybees could also be influenced by phantom decoys. The results were surprising.
Previous research has shown that phantom decoys can influence animals such as cats, Asian honey bees, and monkeys. However, the effects are not always straightforward. While phantom decoys may cause animals like wallabies to spend more time exploring available food options, they do not necessarily impact their final choices.
Studying the effects of phantom decoys on animals can provide valuable insights into why they make certain decisions. This knowledge can have practical applications in areas such as agriculture, conservation, and pest control.
Western honey bees (Apis mellifera) are crucial pollinators for agricultural crops worldwide. In Australia alone, the honeybee industry contributes around A$14 billion annually through honey production and pollination services. Bees collect nectar and pollen from flowers, which provide them with essential carbohydrates and protein. In the process, they also play a vital role in pollinating plants for reproduction.
However, not all flowers provide bees with nectar. Some flowers act as phantom decoys, attracting pollinators without offering any nectar. These flowers may have previously contained nectar that has been collected by other insects or may have varying nectar production throughout the day. Some flowers simply mimic other plants that have more nectar to entice pollinators.
In their recent research, scientists tested whether Western honey bees would fall for phantom decoys. Instead of real flowers, they used artificial flowers made from laminated paper with a nectar-filled tube in the center. By adjusting the nectar quality and accessibility, they created different “values” for the flowers.
Bees were trained to enter a box where they had a choice of three flowers: one with easy access but low-quality nectar, another with high-quality nectar but difficult access, and a third with easy access and much higher-quality nectar. Unsurprisingly, the bees quickly preferred the flower with easy access and high-quality nectar.
To test the phantom decoy effect, the researchers presented the bees with the same choice of three flowers, but the easy-access, high-quality flower was empty of nectar. Unlike humans, who would typically choose the next best available option, the bees did not make predictable choices after encountering the empty flower. They instead left all three flowers untouched. This suggests that bees are not susceptible to phantom decoys in this particular scenario.
The bees’ behavior can be likened to when your favorite ice cream flavor is sold out, and instead of choosing another flavor, you decide not to buy any ice cream at all.
In the presence of an empty flower, the bees also moved more between all three flowers, likely expecting the empty flower to eventually refill. This increased movement and eventual abandonment of flower patches due to phantom decoys could have significant implications for pollination in flower patches and related agricultural and conservation practices.
Understanding how animals, such as bees, make choices can provide valuable insights into their behavior and help inform various industries. The researchers would like to acknowledge Anahi Castillo Angon and Cristian Gabriel Orlando for their contributions to this research and article.
