|
|
Sueur, C., & Petit, O. (2008). Shared or unshared consensus decision in macaques? Behav. Process., 78(1), 84–92.
Abstract: Members of a social group have to make collective decisions in order to synchronise their activities. In a shared consensus decision, all group members can take part in the decision whereas in an unshared consensus decision, one individual, usually a dominant member of the group, takes the decision for the rest of the group. It has been suggested that the type of decision-making of a species could be influenced by its social style. To investigate this further, we studied collective movements in two species with opposed social systems, the Tonkean macaque (Macaca tonkeana) and the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta). From our results, it appears that the decision to move is the result of the choices and actions of several individuals in both groups. However, this consensus decision involved nearly all group members in Tonkean macaques whereas dominant and old individuals took a prominent role in rhesus macaques. Thus, we suggest that Tonkean macaques display equally shared consensus decisions to move, whereas in the same context rhesus macaque exhibit partially shared consensus decisions. Such a difference in making a collective decision might be linked to the different social systems of the two studied species.
|
|
|
|
Dyer, J. R. G., Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Couzin, I. D., & Krause, J. (2009). Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci., 364(1518), 781–789.
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.
|
|
|
|
Conradt, L., Krause, J., Couzin, I. D., & Roper, T. J. (2009). “Leading According to Need” in Self-Organizing Groups. Am Nat, 173(3), 304–312.
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.
|
|
