Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

Conradt, Larissa; Roper, T. J.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0257

Cited by 117 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(113 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We recognize both shared consensus, where all group members participate in the decision process and converge towards a decision, and unshared consensus, where one or several dominant group members make the final decision (Conradt and Roper 2009). In the latter case, there may be an advisory process where group members discuss an item, but one or a few point persons make the actual decision (Sniezek 1992, Sniezek and Buckley 1995, Budescu and Rantilla 2000.…”

Section: Decision Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Watkins¹,

Massey²,

Brooks³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Ecological restoration, particularly in urban contexts, is a complex collective decision-making process that involves a diversity of stakeholders and experts, each with their own perceptions and preferences about what landscapes should and can look like, how to get them to the desired state, and on what timeline. We investigate how structural and behavioral factors may influence collective decision making in the context of ecological restoration, with the purpose of establishing general relationships between management styles (defined by structural and behavioral factors of the organization) and decision outcomes. Informed by existing literature on collective decision making and by empirical data from the Chicago Wilderness region, we present a stylized agent-based model that maps out and simulates the processes by which individuals within restoration organizations communicate, discuss, and ultimately make a decision. Our study examines how structural and behavioral characteristicsincluding: (a) the number of actors and groups involved in decision making, (b) the frequency and type of interactions among actors, (c) the initial setup of positions and respect, (d) outside information, and (e) entrenchment and cost of dissent-lead to or prohibit group convergence in terms of collective position, variation in position across actors, and final decision strategies. We found that formal meetings and group leaders are important facilitators of convergence, especially when multiple groups are present, new information is introduced in the process, and participants are polarized around an issue. Also, intergroup interactions are particularly important for overall convergence. Position entrenchment slows the convergence process and increases the need for decision strategies involving outside intervention. Cost of dissent can reinforce these effects. Our study formalizes collective decision-making processes within the context of ecological restoration, establishes generalizable relationships between these processes and decision outcomes, and provides a foundation for further empirical and modeling research.

show abstract

Section: Decision Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Watkins¹,

Massey²,

Brooks³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the optimal destination often differs between individuals [3,24,29,30,37,79]. Conradt & Roper [80] developed a model of decisions about movement destination in groups of three animals, as follows.…”

Section: Synchronization Of Movement Destination Between Three Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Conradt

2011

Interface Focus.

Self Cite

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

“…They are very important for both animal and human groups as they allow groups to remain together despite individual differences in preference and consequently help prevent individuals from losing the benefits associated with being part of a large group (Conradt & Roper 2009;Sumpter & Pratt 2009). Decision making almost always involves some form of leadership.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans

Dyer

Johansson

Helbing

et al. 2008

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

340

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

Cited by 117 publications

References 48 publications

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

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

Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About