IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0015505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Swarm Intelligence in Animal Groups: When Can a Collective Out-Perform an Expert?

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos V Katsikopoulos
  • Andrew J King

Abstract

An important potential advantage of group-living that has been mostly neglected by life scientists is that individuals in animal groups may cope more effectively with unfamiliar situations. Social interaction can provide a solution to a cognitive problem that is not available to single individuals via two potential mechanisms: (i) individuals can aggregate information, thus augmenting their ‘collective cognition’, or (ii) interaction with conspecifics can allow individuals to follow specific ‘leaders’, those experts with information particularly relevant to the decision at hand. However, a-priori, theory-based expectations about which of these decision rules should be preferred are lacking. Using a set of simple models, we present theoretical conditions (involving group size, and diversity of individual information) under which groups should aggregate information, or follow an expert, when faced with a binary choice. We found that, in single-shot decisions, experts are almost always more accurate than the collective across a range of conditions. However, for repeated decisions – where individuals are able to consider the success of previous decision outcomes – the collective's aggregated information is almost always superior. The results improve our understanding of how social animals may process information and make decisions when accuracy is a key component of individual fitness, and provide a solid theoretical framework for future experimental tests where group size, diversity of individual information, and the repeatability of decisions can be measured and manipulated.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos V Katsikopoulos & Andrew J King, 2010. "Swarm Intelligence in Animal Groups: When Can a Collective Out-Perform an Expert?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-5, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0015505
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015505
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015505&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0015505?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. Conradt & T. J. Roper, 2003. "Group decision-making in animals," Nature, Nature, vol. 421(6919), pages 155-158, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stamatios C Nicolis & Natalia Zabzina & Tanya Latty & David J T Sumpter, 2011. "Collective Irrationality and Positive Feedback," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roland W. Scholz, 2018. "Ways and modes of utilizing Brunswik’s Theory of Probabilistic Functionalism: new perspectives for decision and sustainability research?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 99-117, March.
    2. Julian Zappala & Brian Logan, 2010. "Effects of resource availability on consensus decision making in primates," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 400-415, December.
    3. Shinnosuke Nakayama & Rufus A Johnstone & Andrea Manica, 2012. "Temperament and Hunger Interact to Determine the Emergence of Leaders in Pairs of Foraging Fish," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-6, August.
    4. Nauta, Johannes & Simoens, Pieter & Khaluf, Yara, 2022. "Group size and resource fractality drive multimodal search strategies: A quantitative analysis on group foraging," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 590(C).
    5. Pirotta, Enrico & New, Leslie & Harwood, John & Lusseau, David, 2014. "Activities, motivations and disturbance: An agent-based model of bottlenose dolphin behavioral dynamics and interactions with tourism in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 282(C), pages 44-58.
    6. Jeffrey Andrews & Matthew Clark & Vicken Hillis & Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, 2024. "The cultural evolution of collective property rights for sustainable resource governance," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 404-412, April.
    7. Pawel Sobkowicz, 2009. "Modelling Opinion Formation with Physics Tools: Call for Closer Link with Reality," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11.
    8. Sveinung Arnesen & Troy S Broderstad & Mikael P Johannesson & Jonas Linde, 2019. "Conditional legitimacy: How turnout, majority size, and outcome affect perceptions of legitimacy in European Union membership referendums," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 176-197, June.
    9. Marie-Hélène Pillot & Jacques Gautrais & Patrick Arrufat & Iain D Couzin & Richard Bon & Jean-Louis Deneubourg, 2011. "Scalable Rules for Coherent Group Motion in a Gregarious Vertebrate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0015505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.