Abstract: Despite the growing interest in collective phenomena such as “swarm intelligence” and “wisdom of the crowds,” little is known about the mechanisms underlying decision-making in vertebrate animal groups. How do animals use the behavior of others to make more accurate decisions, especially when it is not possible to identify which individuals possess pertinent information? One plausible answer is that individuals respond only when they see a threshold number of individuals perform a particular behavior. Here, we investigate the role of such “quorum responses” in the movement decisions of fish (three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus). We show that a quorum response to conspecifics can explain how sticklebacks make collective movement decisions, both in the absence and presence of a potential predation risk. Importantly our experimental work shows that a quorum response can reduce the likelihood of amplification of nonadaptive following behavior. Whereas the traveling direction of solitary fish was strongly influenced by a single replica conspecific, the replica was largely ignored by larger groups of four or eight sticklebacks under risk, and the addition of a second replica was required to exert influence on the movement decisions of such groups. Model simulations further predict that quorum responses by fish improve the accuracy and speed of their decision-making over that of independent decision-makers or those using a weak linear response. This study shows that effective and accurate information transfer in groups may be gained only through nonlinear responses of group members to each other, thus highlighting the importance of quorum decision-making.

Abstract: Analyses of animal social networks derived from group-based associations often rely on randomisation methods developed in ecology (Manly, Ecology 76:1109–1115, 1995) and made available to the animal behaviour community through implementation of a pair-wise swapping algorithm by Bejder et al. (Anim Behav 56:719–725, 1998). We report a correctable flaw in this method and point the reader to a wider literature on the subject of null models in the ecology literature. We illustrate the importance of correcting the method using a toy network and use it to make a preliminary analysis of a network of associations among eagle rays.

Abstract: Network analysis has a long history in the mathematical and social sciences and the aim of this introduction is to provide a brief overview of the potential that it holds for the study of animal behaviour. One of the most attractive features of the network paradigm is that it provides a single conceptual framework with which we can study the social organisation of animals at all levels (individual, dyad, group, population) and for all types of interaction (aggressive, cooperative, sexual etc.). Graphical tools allow a visual inspection of networks which often helps inspire ideas for testable hypotheses. Network analysis itself provides a multitude of novel statistical tools that can be used to characterise social patterns in animal populations. Among the important insights that networks have facilitated is that indirect social connections matter. Interactions between individuals generate a social environment at the population level which in turn selects for behavioural strategies at the individual level. A social network is often a perfect means by which to represent heterogeneous relationships in a population. Probing the biological drivers for these heterogeneities, often as a function of time, forms the basis of many of the current uses of network analysis in the behavioural sciences. This special issue on social networks brings together a diverse group of practitioners whose study systems range from social insects over reptiles to birds, cetaceans, ungulates and primates in order to illustrate the wide-ranging applications of network analysis.

Abstract: This paper reviews the literature on leadership in vertebrate groups, including recent work on human groups, before presenting the results of three new experiments looking at leadership and decision making in small and large human groups. In experiment 1, we find that both group size and the presence of uninformed individuals can affect the speed with which small human groups (eight people) decide between two opposing directional preferences and the likelihood of the group splitting. In experiment 2, we show that the spatial positioning of informed individuals within small human groups (10 people) can affect the speed and accuracy of group motion. We find that having a mixture of leaders positioned in the centre and on the edge of a group increases the speed and accuracy with which the group reaches their target. In experiment 3, we use large human crowds (100 and 200 people) to demonstrate that the trends observed from earlier work using small human groups can be applied to larger crowds. We find that only a small minority of informed individuals is needed to guide a large uninformed group. These studies build upon important theoretical and empirical work on leadership and decision making in animal groups.

Abstract: Self‐organizing‐system approaches have shed significant light on the mechanisms underlying synchronized movements by large groups of animals, such as shoals of fish, flocks of birds, or herds of ungulates. However, these approaches rarely consider conflicts of interest between group members, although there is reason to suppose that such conflicts are commonplace. Here, we demonstrate that, where conflicts exist, individual members of self‐organizing groups can, in principle, increase their influence on group movement destination by strategically changing simple behavioral parameters (namely, movement speed, assertiveness, and social attraction range). However, they do so at the expense of an increased risk of group fragmentation and a decrease in movement efficiency. We argue that the resulting trade‐offs faced by each group member render it likely that group movements are led by those members for which reaching a particular destination is most crucial or group cohesion is least important. We term this phenomenon leading according to “need” or “social indifference,” respectively. Both kinds of leading can occur in the absence of knowledge of or communication about the needs of other group members and without the assumption of altruistic cooperation. We discuss our findings in the light of observations on fish and other vertebrates.