| Home | << 1 >> |
|
King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2009). Leaders, followers and group decision-making. Commun Integr Biol, 2(2), 147–150.
Abstract: Social animals have to make a multitude of group decisions on a daily basis. At the most basic level, this will involve coordination of activities and travel directions. In groups of insects, birds and fish, much of this 'coordination' can be the result of relatively simple interaction patterns among group members. Such systems are self-organizing, and often do not require specific leaders, or followers. However, in more socially complex groups, achieving collective group action-a consensus-may not be accomplished by simple rules alone. Instead, a consensus may be reached by the averaging of preferences (democracy), or by following the choices of specific leaders (despotism). In this mini-review, we discuss the conditions necessary for despotism in animal groups, and focus upon new studies investigating coordinated actions in primates. We ask how specific leaders arise and why others follow them-providing new insight into the mechanisms of effective leadership in groups characterized by strong social relationships.
|
|
King, A. J., Douglas, C. M. S., Huchard, E., Isaac, N. J. B., & Cowlishaw, G. (2008). Dominance and affiliation mediate despotism in a social primate. Curr Biol, 18(23), 1833–1838.
Abstract: Group-living animals routinely have to reach a consensus decision and choose between mutually exclusive actions in order to coordinate their activities and benefit from sociality. Theoretical models predict “democratic” rather than “despotic” decisions to be widespread in social vertebrates, because they result in lower “consensus costs”-the costs of an individual foregoing its optimal action to comply with the decision-for the group as a whole. Yet, quantification of consensus costs is entirely lacking, and empirical observations provide strong support for the occurrence of both democratic and despotic decisions in nature. We conducted a foraging experiment on a wild social primate (chacma baboons, Papio ursinus) in order to gain new insights into despotic group decision making. The results show that group foraging decisions were consistently led by the individual who acquired the greatest benefits from those decisions, namely the dominant male. Subordinate group members followed the leader despite considerable consensus costs. Follower behavior was mediated by social ties to the leader, and where these ties were weaker, group fission was more likely to occur. Our findings highlight the importance of leader incentives and social relationships in group decision-making processes and the emergence of despotism.
|
|
Sueur, C., Jacobs, A., Amblard, F., Petit, O., & King, A. J. (2010). How can social network analysis improve the study of primate behavior? Am. J. Primatol., 73(8), 703–719.
Abstract: Abstract When living in a group, individuals have to make trade-offs, and compromise, in order to balance the advantages and disadvantages of group life. Strategies that enable individuals to achieve this typically affect inter-individual interactions resulting in nonrandom associations. Studying the patterns of this assortativity using social network analyses can allow us to explore how individual behavior influences what happens at the group, or population level. Understanding the consequences of these interactions at multiple scales may allow us to better understand the fitness implications for individuals. Social network analyses offer the tools to achieve this. This special issue aims to highlight the benefits of social network analysis for the study of primate behaviour, assessing it's suitability for analyzing individual social characteristics as well as group/population patterns. In this introduction to the special issue, we first introduce social network theory, then demonstrate with examples how social networks can influence individual and collective behaviors, and finally conclude with some outstanding questions for future primatological research. Am. J. Primatol. 73:703?719, 2011. ? 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
|