Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

Social animals regularly face consensus decisions whereby they choose, collectively, between mutually exclusive actions. Such decisions often involve conflicts of interest between group members with respect to preferred action. Conflicts could, in principle, be resolved, either by sharing decisions between members (‘shared decisions’) or by one ‘dominant’ member making decisions on behalf of the whole group (‘unshared decisions’). Both, shared and unshared decisions, have been observed. However, it is unclear as to what favours the evolution of either decision type. Here, after a brief literature review, we present a novel method, involving a combination of self-organizing system and game theory modelling, of investigating the evolution of shared and unshared decisions. We apply the method to decisions on movement direction. We find that both, shared and unshared, decisions can evolve without individuals having a global overview of the group''s behaviour or any knowledge about other members'' preferences or intentions. Selection favours unshared over shared decisions when conflicts are high relative to grouping benefits, and vice versa. These results differ from those of group decision models relating to activity timings. We attribute this to fundamental differences between collective decisions about modalities that are disjunct (here, space) or continuous (here, time) with respect to costs/benefits.     

Democracy in animals: the evolution of shared group decisions

A 'consensus decision' is when the members of a group choose, collectively, between mutually exclusive actions. In humans, consensus decisions are often made democratically or in an 'equally shared' manner, i.e. all group members contribute to the decision. Biologists are only now realizing that shared consensus decisions also occur in social animals (other than eusocial insects). Sharing of decisions is, in principle, more profitable for groups than accepting the 'unshared' decision of a single dominant member. However, this is not true for all individual group members, posing a question as to how shared decision making could evolve. Here, we use a game theory model to show that sharing of decisions can evolve under a wide range of circumstances but especially in the following ones: when groups are heterogeneous in composition; when alternative decision outcomes differ in potential costs and these costs are large; when grouping benefits are marginal; or when groups are close to, or above, optimal size. Since these conditions are common in nature, it is easy to see how mechanisms for shared decision making could have arisen in a wide range of species, including early human ancestors.     

Group decision making in fission-fusion societies: evidence from two-field experiments in Bechstein's bats

Group decisions are required when group coordination is beneficial, but individuals can choose between alternatives. Despite the increased interest in animal group decision making, there is a lack of experimental field studies that investigate how animals with conflicting information make group decisions. In particular, no field studies have considered the influence of fission-fusion behaviour (temporary splitting into subgroups) on group decisions. We studied group decision making in two wild Bechstein's bat colonies, which are fission-fusion societies of stable individual composition. Since they frequently switch communal roosts, colony members must regularly make group decisions over where to roost. In the two-field experiments, we provided marked individuals with conflicting information about the suitability of potential roosts. We investigated whether conflicting information led to group decisions that followed a 'unanimous' or a 'majority' rule, or increased colony fission. Individual behaviour suggests that bats considered both their own information and the behaviour of others when deciding where to roost. Group decisions about communal roosts reflected the information available to a majority of the bats roosting together, but conflicting information led to an increased fission in one colony. Our results suggest that fission-fusion societies allow individuals to avoid majority decisions that are not in their favour.     

Deciding group movements: Where and when to go

A group of animals can only move cohesively, if group members “somehow” reach a consensus about the timing (e.g., start) and the spatial direction/destination of the collective movement. Timing and spatial decisions usually differ with respect to the continuity of their cost/benefit distribution in such a way that, in principle, compromises are much more feasible in timing decision (e.g., median preferred time) than they are in spatial decisions. The consequence is that consensus costs connected to collective timing decisions are usually less skewed amongst group members than are consensus costs connected to spatial decisions. This, in turn, influences the evolution of decision sharing: sharing in timing decisions is most likely to evolve when conflicts are high relative to group cohesion benefits, while sharing in spatial decisions is most likely to evolve in the opposite situation. We discuss the implications of these differences for the study of collective movement decisions.     

Shared or unshared consensus decision in macaques?

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.     

群居动物中的共同决策

群居的个体能够更好的躲避天敌的捕食,增强与同种其它种群的资源竞争,增加生殖机会与生殖成功率,使信息在个体之间顺畅的交流等。但是群内个体又会在有限的资源下产生群内的个体竞争,从而引起动物群的分裂,失去群居的利益。为了保持动物群的聚合力,当动物群内出现冲突时,需要在群内个体间形成协调各种冲突以及在群内达成共识的机制。依据动物社群组成的不同,领导力机制和自组织机制是协调群内冲突,形成一致决策和联合决策的两种主要机制。从行为生态学的角度入手,阐述了动物群内共同决策的类型,群内冲突的协调机制,共同决策的制定过程,比较了信息因素与利益因素在共同决策制定过程中的影响。旨在藉此推进我国相关领域研究的开展, 为群居动物社会与行为生态学研究者启发思路,并为保护群居濒危物种提供科学依据。     

Quorum responses and consensus decision making

Animal groups are said to make consensus decisions when group members come to agree on the same option. Consensus decisions are taxonomically widespread and potentially offer three key benefits: maintenance of group cohesion, enhancement of decision accuracy compared with lone individuals and improvement in decision speed. In the absence of centralized control, arriving at a consensus depends on local interactions in which each individual''s likelihood of choosing an option increases with the number of others already committed to that option. The resulting positive feedback can effectively direct most or all group members to the best available choice. In this paper, we examine the functional form of the individual response to others'' behaviour that lies at the heart of this process. We review recent theoretical and empirical work on consensus decisions, and we develop a simple mathematical model to show the central importance to speedy and accurate decisions of quorum responses, in which an animal''s probability of exhibiting a behaviour is a sharply nonlinear function of the number of other individuals already performing this behaviour. We argue that systems relying on such quorum rules can achieve cohesive choice of the best option while also permitting adaptive tuning of the trade-off between decision speed and accuracy.     

When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making

Correct decision making is crucial for animals to maximize foraging success and minimize predation risk. Group-living animals can make such decisions by using their own personal information or by pooling information with other group members (i.e. social information). Here, we investigate how individuals might best balance their use of personal and social information. We use a simple modelling approach in which individual decisions based upon social information are more likely to be correct when more individuals are involved and their personal information is more accurate. Our model predicts that when the personal information of group members is poor (accurate less than half the time), individuals should avoid pooling information. In contrast, when personal information is reliable (accurate at least half the time), individuals should use personal information less often and social information more often, and this effect should grow stronger in larger groups. One implication of this pattern is that social information allows less well-informed members of large groups to reach a correct decision with the same probability as more well-informed members of small groups. Thus, animals in larger groups may be able to minimize the costs of collecting personal information without impairing their ability to make correct decisions.     

Self-Improvement for Team-Players: The Effects of Individual Effort on Aggregated Group Information

By putting effort into behaviours like foraging or scanning for predators, an animal can improve the correctness of its personal information about the environment. For animals living in groups, the individual can gain further information if it is able to assess public information about the environment from other group members. Earlier work has shown that consensus group decisions based upon the public information available within the group are more likely to be correct than decisions based upon personal information alone, given that each individual in a group has a fixed probability of being correct. This study develops a model where group members are able to improve their personal likelihood of making a correct decision by conducting some level of (costly) effort. I demonstrate that there is an evolutionarily stable level of effort for all the individuals within the group, and the effort made by an individual should decrease with increasing group size. The relevance of these results to social decision making is discussed: in particular, these results are similar to standard theoretical predictions about the amount of vigilance shown by individuals decreasing with increasing group size. However, this model suggests that these results could come about where individuals are coordinating their effort within the group (unlike standard models, which assume that all individual effort is independent of the actions of others). This ties in with experimental findings where individuals have been shown to monitor the efforts of others.     

From compromise to leadership in pigeon homing

A central problem faced by animals traveling in groups is how navigational decisions by group members are integrated, especially when members cannot assess which individuals are best informed or have conflicting information or interests . Pigeons are now known to recapitulate faithfully their individually distinct habitual routes home , and this provides a novel paradigm for investigating collective decisions during flight under varying levels of interindividual conflict. Using high-precision GPS tracking of pairs of pigeons, we found that if conflict between two birds' directional preferences was small, individuals averaged their routes, whereas if conflict rose over a critical threshold, either the pair split or one of the birds became the leader. Modeling such paired decision-making showed that both outcomes-compromise and leadership-could emerge from the same set of simple behavioral rules. Pairs also navigated more efficiently than did the individuals of which they were composed, even though leadership was not necessarily assumed by the more efficient bird. In the context of mass migration of birds and other animals, our results imply that simple self-organizing rules can produce behaviors that improve accuracy in decision-making and thus benefit individuals traveling in groups .     

Coordination and consensus:the role of compromisers in Tibetan macaques

Coordination and consensus in collective behavior have attracted a lot of research interest. Although previous studies have investigated the role of compromisers in group consensus, they provide little insight into why compromisers would allow such social arrangements to persist. In this study, the potential relationship between group movements and conflict management in Tibetan macaques in Anhui province, China, was investigated using hierarchical cluster analyses. Some members with higher social centrality or social rank often formed a front-runner cluster during group movements. They had higher leadership success than individuals outside the front-runner cluster. Other members with lower social centrality or social rank often followed the group movements initiated by the front-runner cluster, and thus formed the compromiser cluster. Compromisers’ proximity relations with front-runners increased with their following scores to front-runners. Compromisers had fewer events of being attacked when they followed group movements initiated by the front-runners. The compromising process made compromisers lose the choice of direction preference, but it could increase their individual safeties. This trade-off suggests that compromisers play a role of decision-maker in coordination and consensus scenarios among social animals.     

Intergroup Conflict and Rational Decision Making

The literature has been relatively silent about post-conflict processes. However, understanding the way humans deal with post-conflict situations is a challenge in our societies. With this in mind, we focus the present study on the rationality of cooperative decision making after an intergroup conflict, i.e., the extent to which groups take advantage of post-conflict situations to obtain benefits from collaborating with the other group involved in the conflict. Based on dual-process theories of thinking and affect heuristic, we propose that intergroup conflict hinders the rationality of cooperative decision making. We also hypothesize that this rationality improves when groups are involved in an in-group deliberative discussion. Results of a laboratory experiment support the idea that intergroup conflict –associated with indicators of the activation of negative feelings (negative affect state and heart rate)– has a negative effect on the aforementioned rationality over time and on both group and individual decision making. Although intergroup conflict leads to sub-optimal decision making, rationality improves when groups and individuals subjected to intergroup conflict make decisions after an in-group deliberative discussion. Additionally, the increased rationality of the group decision making after the deliberative discussion is transferred to subsequent individual decision making.     

How many for dinner? Recruitment and monitoring by glances in capuchins

Group members present physical and physiological differences according to their age, sex or social status, which could generate motivation differences among individuals during travel. In spite of these divergences of interest among individuals, the group succeeds more often than not in making a collective decision about departure time and which direction to take. To reach a consensus decision, animals should exchange information relating to characteristics of group movement through different communication channels. The main purpose of this study is to understand the function of behaviour patterns displayed during movements of white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus). We designed experiments in which we provoked collective movements involving a binary choice. During experiments, a video camera recorded the behaviour of each capuchin, which enabled us to determine which individuals displayed a behavioural pattern during travel and how this behaviour influenced the other group members. We found that looking backwards seemed to permit the recruitment of group mates during collective movement. This behaviour also seemed to allow the quantification of the number of followers, since the emitter modified its locomotion speed according to this number. In this preliminary study, we showed that visual behaviour was used to recruit and monitor group mates during collective movements and provided information on mechanisms involved in maintaining cohesion and coordination among group members during travel.     

Evidence for social role in a dolphin social network

Social animals have to take into consideration the behaviour of conspecifics when making decisions to go by their daily lives. These decisions affect their fitness and there is therefore an evolutionary pressure to try making the right choices. In many instances individuals will make their own choices and the behaviour of the group will be a democratic integration of everyone’s decision. However, in some instances it can be advantageous to follow the choice of a few individuals in the group if they have more information regarding the situation that has arisen. Here I provide early evidence that decisions about shifts in activity states in a population of bottlenose dolphin follow such a decision-making process. This unshared consensus is mediated by a non-vocal signal, which can be communicated globally within the dolphin school. These signals are emitted by individuals that tend to have more information about the behaviour of potential competitors because of their position in the social network. I hypothesise that this decision-making process emerged from the social structure of the population and the need to maintain mixed-sex schools.     

Where Next? Group Coordination and Collective Decision Making by Primates

Primate groups need to remain coordinated in their activities and collectively decide when and where to travel if they are to accrue the benefits and minimize the costs of sociality. The achievement of coordinated activity and group decision making therefore has important implications for individual survival and reproduction. The aim of this special issue is to bring together a collection of empirical, theoretical, and commentary articles by primatologists studying this rapidly expanding topic. In this article, we introduce the contributions within the special issue and provide a background to the topic. We begin by focusing on decisions that involve a collective transition between a resting and a moving state, a transition we term making the move. We examine whether specific predeparture behaviors seen during transitions represent intentional processes or more simple response facilitation. Next we classify decisions according to the contribution of individual group members, and describe how, and why, certain individuals can have a disproportionate influence over group-mates?? behavior. We then review how primate groups make decisions on the move. In particular, we focus on how variability in group size and spatial organization helps or hinders information transmission and coordination. We end with a discussion of new tools and methodology that will allow future investigators to address some outstanding questions in primate coordination and decision-making research. We conclude that a better integration of concepts and terminology, along with a focus on how individuals integrate environmental and social information, will be critical to developing a satisfactory understanding of collective patterns of behavior in primate systems.     

Information use in colonial living

Despite the fact that many animals live in groups, there is still no clear consensus about the ecological or evolutionary mechanisms underlying colonial living. Recently, research has suggested that colonies may be important as sources of social information. The ready availability of information from conspecifics allows animals to make better decisions about avoiding predators, reducing brood parasitism, migratory phenology, mate choice, habitat choice and foraging. These choices can play a large part in the development and maintenance of colonies. Here we review the types of information provided by colonial animals and examine the different ways in which decision‐making in colonies can be enhanced by social information. We discuss what roles information might take in the evolution, formation and maintenance of colonies. In the process, we illustrate that information use permeates all aspects of colonial living.     

To follow or not? How animals in fusion–fission societies handle conflicting information during group decision‐making

When group members possess differing information about the environment, they may disagree on the best movement decision. Such conflicts result in group break‐ups, and are therefore a fundamental driver of fusion–fission group dynamics. Yet, a paucity of empirical work hampers our understanding of how adaptive evolution has shaped plasticity in collective behaviours that promote and maintain fusion–fission dynamics. Using movement data from GPS‐collared bison, we found that individuals constantly associated with other animals possessing different spatial knowledge, and both personal and conspecific information influenced an individual's patch choice decisions. During conflict situations, bison used group familiarity coupled with their knowledge of local foraging options and recently sampled resource quality when deciding to follow or leave a group – a tactic that led to energy‐rewarding movements. Natural selection has shaped collective behaviours for coping with social conflicts and resource heterogeneity, which maintain fusion–fission dynamics and play an essential role in animal distribution.     

Collective decision‐making and fission–fusion dynamics: a conceptual framework

Sociality exists in an extraordinary range of ecological settings. For individuals to accrue the benefits associated with social interactions, they are required to maintain a degree of spatial and temporal coordination in their activities, and make collective decisions. Such coordination and decision‐making has been the focus of much recent research. However, efforts largely have been directed toward understanding patterns of collective behaviour in relatively stable and cohesive groups. Less well understood is how fission–fusion dynamics mediate the process and outcome of collective decisions making. Here, we aim to apply established concepts and knowledge to highlight the implications of fission–fusion dynamics for collective decisions, presenting a conceptual framework based on the outcome of a small‐group discussion INCORE meeting (funded by the European Community's Sixth Framework Programme). First, we discuss how the degree of uncertainty in the environment shapes social flexibility and therefore the types of decisions individuals make in different social settings. Second, we propose that the quality of social relationships and the energetic needs of each individual influence fission decisions. Third, we explore how these factors affect the probability of individuals to fuse. Fourth, we discuss how group size and fission–fusion dynamics may affect communication processes between individuals at a local or global scale to reach a consensus or to fission. Finally, we offer a number of suggestions for future research, capturing emerging ideas and concepts on the interaction between collective decisions and fission–fusion dynamics.     

Human genetic technologies,European governance and the politics of bioethics

With human genetic technologies now an important area of European research and development, bioethics is becoming increasingly important in its regulation and future. As regulatory decisions are also statements about who should get what, bioethics cannot avoid political controversy. Can bioethics sustain its claimed role as authoritative adviser to decision makers, or will its attempts to reach a consensus on human genetic technologies be perceived as the actions of an ambitious interest group? What, in short, is its political future in Europe and elsewhere?     

Cellular and molecular basis of decision‐making

People think they are in control of their own decisions: what to eat or drink, whom to marry or pick a fight with, where to live, what to buy. Behavioural economists and neurophysiologists have long studied decision‐making behaviours. However, these behaviours have only recently been studied through the light of molecular genetics. Here, we review recent research in mice, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans, that analyses the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying decision‐making. These studies interrogate decision‐making about food, sexual behaviour, aggression or foraging strategies, and add molecular and cell biology understanding onto the consilience of brain and decision.