An agent-based model of group decision making in baboons

Sellers, William I.; Hill, Russell A.; Logan, Brian

doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2064

Cited by 51 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of studies on the link between social structure, grooming and group size (Kudo and Dunbar, 2001, Lehman et al, 2009) followed standard practices in social network analyses and used a criterion for distinguishing casual from meaningful relation ships. Modeling permits, without using this arbitrary criterion for preferred relationships, the simulation of interactions between group members (Seyfarth, 1977;Bryson et al, 2007;Meunier et al, 2006;Sellers et al, 2007;Puga Gonzalez et al, 2009) and also resulting sub grouping patterns (i.e. how individuals are sub grouped; Ramos Fernandez et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Sueur

Deneubourg²,

Petit

et al. 2011

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn social animals, fission is a common mode of group proliferation and dispersion and may be affected by genetic or other social factors. Sociality implies preserving relationships between group members. An increase in group size and/or in competition for food within the group can result in decrease certain social interactions between members, and the group may split irreversibly as a consequence. One individual may try to maintain bonds with a maximum of group members in order to keep group cohesion, i.e. proximity and stable relationships. However, this strategy needs time and time is often limited. In addition, previous studies have shown that whatever the group size, an individual interacts only with certain grooming partners. There, we develop a computational model to assess how dynamics of group cohesion are related to group size and to the structure of grooming relationships. Groups' sizes after simulated fission are compared to observed sizes of 40 groups of primates. Results showed that the relationship between grooming time and group size is dependent on how each individual attributes grooming time to its social partners, i.e. grooming a few number of preferred partners or grooming equally or not all partners. The number of partners seemed to be more important for the group cohesion than the grooming time itself. This structural constraint has important consequences on group sociality, as it gives the possibility of competition for grooming partners, attraction for high ranking individuals as found in primates' groups. It could, however, also have implications when considering the cognitive capacities of primates.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Sueur

Deneubourg²,

Petit

et al. 2011

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, emerging empirical evidence challenges the assumption that a dominant individual always dictates what happens in small groups of animals (primates : Stolba 1979;Stewart & Harcourt 1994;Boinski & Campbell 1995;Byrne 2000;Milton 2000;Meunier et al 2006;Sellers et al 2007;ungulates: Conradt & Roper 2003;bats: Kerth et al 2006;birds: Black 1988). Conversely, there is no intrinsic reason why self-organizing systems should only produce equal sharing of decisions (Conradt et al in press).…”

Section: Short Review: Conflicts Of Interest and The Evolution Of Decmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

Conradt

Roper

2008

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…transient) leadership, in conflict situations in a wide range of animals, including birds, primates, bats, carnivores and ungulates [6,19,28,[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]. However, unshared (dictatorial) decision-making, or hierarchical decision-making, has also been observed in several species, including dolphins, elephants, primates and birds [24][25][26]71,72].…”

Section: The Group-level Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models in animal collective decision-making: information uncertainty and conflicting preferences

Conradt

2011

Interface Focus.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collective decision-making plays a central part in the lives of many social animals. Two important factors that influence collective decision-making are information uncertainty and conflicting preferences. Here, I bring together, and briefly review, basic models relating to animal collective decision-making in situations with information uncertainty and in situations with conflicting preferences between group members. The intention is to give an overview about the different types of modelling approaches that have been employed and the questions that they address and raise. Despite the use of a wide range of different modelling techniques, results show a coherent picture, as follows. Relatively simple cognitive mechanisms can lead to effective information pooling. Groups often face a trade-off between decision accuracy and speed, but appropriate fine-tuning of behavioural parameters could achieve high accuracy while maintaining reasonable speed. The right balance of interdependence and independence between animals is crucial for maintaining group cohesion and achieving high decision accuracy. In conflict situations, a high degree of decision-sharing between individuals is predicted, as well as transient leadership and leadership according to needs and physiological status. Animals often face crucial trade-offs between maintaining group cohesion and influencing the decision outcome in their own favour. Despite the great progress that has been made, there remains one big gap in our knowledge: how do animals make collective decisions in situations when information uncertainty and conflict of interest operate simultaneously?

show abstract

An agent-based model of group decision making in baboons

Cited by 51 publications

References 49 publications

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Group size, grooming and fission in primates: A modeling approach based on group structure

Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

Models in animal collective decision-making: information uncertainty and conflicting preferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About