Lizards lack speed-accuracy trade-offs in a quantitative foraging task when unable to sample the reward.

To make decisions, animals gather information from the environment in order to avoid costs (e.g., reduced survival) and increase benefits (e.g., foraging success). When time is limited or information is insufficient, most animals face a speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) - they have to balance the benefits of making quick decisions against the costs of inaccurate decisions. Here, we investigated the relationship between decision accuracy and decision speed in gidgee skinks (Egernia stokesii) performing a food-based spontaneous quantity discrimination task. Rather than a SAT we found a speed-accuracy alignment; lizards made decisions that were fast and accurate, rather than inaccurate. Furthermore, we found only within-, but no between-individual differences in decision making indicating behavioural plasticity in the absence of individual decision styles. Finally, latency to choice was highly repeatable, more so than choice accuracy. Previous work has shown that learning, the costs of a bad decision and task difficulty frequently result in SATs. The lack of a SAT in our lizards might be a direct consequence of our simple testing methodology which prevented learning by not allowing lizards to consume the chosen quantity. To fully understand how SATs develop, different methodologies that control the costs and benefits of decisions should be compared.