Consensus and experience trump leadership, suppressing individual personality during social foraging

McDonald, Nicholas D.; Rands, Sean A.; Hill, Francesca; Elder, Charlotte; Ioannou, Christos C.

doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600892

Cited by 58 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inter‐individual variation can also be driven by shorter term differences in hunger (McDonald, Rands, Hill, Elder, & Ioannou, ). Although such differences in motivation can often result in intertrial variation that swamps any other measured effect such as the prey phenotype targeted (e.g., odd or majority).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The oddity effect drives prey choice but not necessarily attack time

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tendency of predators to preferentially attack phenotypically odd prey in groups (the oddity effect) is a clear example of how predator cognition can impact behaviour and morphology in prey. Through targeting phenotypically odd prey, predators are thought to avoid the cognitive constraints that delay and limit the success of attacks on homogenous prey groups (the confusion effect). In addition to influencing which prey a predator will attack, the confusion and oddity effects would also predict that attacks on odd prey can occur more rapidly than attacking the majority prey type, as odd prey are more easily targeted, but this prediction has yet to be tested. Here, we used kerri tetra fish, Inpaichthys kerri, presented with mixed phenotypic groups of Daphnia dyed red or black to investigate whether odd prey in groups are preferentially attacked and whether these attacks were faster than those on the majority prey type. In agreement with previous work, odd prey were targeted and attacked more often than expected from their frequency in the prey groups, regardless of whether the odd prey was red in a group of black prey or vice versa. However, no difference was found in the time taken to attack odd vs. majority prey items, contrary to our predictions. Our results suggest that the time taken to make an attack is determined by a wider range of factors or is subject to greater variance than the choice of which prey is selectively targeted in a group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The oddity effect drives prey choice but not necessarily attack time

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some studies have found that individual differences in personality are maintained under social conditions (Brown & Irving, 2014;Laskowski & Bell, 2014), this is not always so McDonald et al, 2016). Whether personality traits are expressed within a group context can depend on aspects of the social environment, as well as the behavioral context (Webster & Ward, 2011;McDonald et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether personality traits are expressed within a group context can depend on aspects of the social environment, as well as the behavioral context (Webster & Ward, 2011;McDonald et al, 2016). For example, within three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) shoals, bolder individuals were the first to emerge from a refuge, but the subsequent decision to travel over open water towards a foraging site was not based on leadership by bold fish, but rather on consensus decision-making (McDonald et al, 2016). In the current study, while individual-and group-level personality variation had only moderate effects over certain elements of shoaling behavior, these factors strongly influenced both the acquisition and social transmission of foraging information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the estimated difference in mean group size between bold and shy fish was modest, the introduction of a novel (potentially threatening) stimulus might have resulted in a more pronounced difference between personality types in this regard (Dyer et al, 2009;McDonald et al, 2016). Increases in group size can promote exploration (Brown & Irving, 2014) and investigation of potential threats (Dugatkin, 1991;Croft et al, 2006) by diluting the risks to each individual and by enhancing anti-predator defenses .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, social transmission can occur over shorter timescales (Strandburg-Peshkin et al, 2013;Ioannou et al, 2015), meaning the estimates of its effects in this study are potentially conservative. The bold-leader networks tested whether bold individuals were more effective demonstrators-e.g., if informed bold individuals were especially likely to lead other group members to the food source (Aplin et al, 2014;McDonald et al, 2016). Finally, the shy-social-learner networks tested whether shy individuals were faster than bold individuals to acquire and/or use social information (Kurvers et al, 2010).…”

Section: Network-based Diffusion Analysis (Nbda)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social dynamics, network structure, and information diffusion in fish shoals.

Hasenjager¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for always ensuring my library was well-stocked, and for fostering my enduring love of the natural world. Animal populations are often highly structured, with individuals differing in terms of whom they interact with and how frequently they do so. The resulting pattern of relationships constitutes a population's social network. In this dissertation, I examine how environmental variation can shape social networks and influence information flow within them. In Chapter I, I review the history of social network analysis in animal behavior research, and discuss recent insights generated by network approaches in behavioral ecology. I focus on the fields of: social learning, collective behavior, animal personalities, and cooperation. Animal network studies are often criticized for a lack of replication at the network level and an over-reliance on descriptive approaches in lieu of hypothesis testing. Small, shoaling fish may provide a means to address these concerns, as manipulative experiments can be conducted on replicate social groups under captive conditions. Chapters III-V examine the impacts of environmental variation on the social networks of Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata) shoals, the social dynamics from which they emerge, and information diffusion within them. In the experiments described in Chapter III, I manipulated shoal composition in terms of within-group familiarity.Mixed shoals of familiar and unfamiliar fish exhibited greater homogeneity in network vi structure relative to other groups, which likely contributed to the rapid diffusion of foraging information observed within them. In the experiments discussed in Chapter IV, Imanipulated the within-shoal mixture of personality types. In addition to impacting frequencies of partner switching and patterns of phenotypic assortment, individual-and group-level personality variation had strong effects on the initial acquisition of novel foraging information and the speed of its transmission through a group. In the experiments in Chapter V, I manipulated the ambient predation risk perceived by groups.High-risk conditions were associated with shifts in network structure consistent with attempts to minimize predation risk. High ambient risk also impeded the acquisition and subsequent transmission of foraging information, likely due to heightened neophobia and/or an increase in the perceived costs of personal sampling. I conclude in Chapter VI by considering the broader implications of my work and highlighting promising avenues for future research.vii

show abstract

Does the match between individual and group behavior matter in shoaling sticklebacks?

Kim

Álvarez-Quintero

Metcalfe

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In animals living in groups, the social environment is fundamental to shaping the behaviors and life histories of an individual. A mismatch between individual and group behavior patterns may have disadvantages if the individual is incapable of flexibly changing its state in response to the social environment that influences its energy gain and expenditure. We used different social groups of juvenile three‐spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) with experimentally manipulated compositions of individual sociability to study the feedback between individual and group behaviors and to test how the social environment shapes behavior, metabolic rate, and growth. Experimentally created unsociable groups, containing a high proportion of less sociable fish, showed bolder collective behaviors during feeding than did corresponding sociable groups. Fish within groups where the majority of members had a level of sociability similar to their own gained more mass than did those within mismatched groups. Less sociable individuals within sociable groups tended to have a relatively low mass but a high standard metabolic rate. A mismatch between the sociability of an individual and that of the majority of the group in which it is living confers a growth disadvantage probably due to the expression of nonadaptive behaviors that increase energetic costs.

show abstract

Consensus and experience trump leadership, suppressing individual personality during social foraging

Abstract: A variety of mechanisms express and suppress individual behavioral tendencies during group decision-making in fish.

Cited by 58 publications

References 49 publications

The oddity effect drives prey choice but not necessarily attack time

The oddity effect drives prey choice but not necessarily attack time

Social dynamics, network structure, and information diffusion in fish shoals.

Does the match between individual and group behavior matter in shoaling sticklebacks?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About