IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0018901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collective Irrationality and Positive Feedback

Author

Listed:
  • Stamatios C Nicolis
  • Natalia Zabzina
  • Tanya Latty
  • David J T Sumpter

Abstract

Recent experiments on ants and slime moulds have assessed the degree to which they make rational decisions when presented with a number of alternative food sources or shelter. Ants and slime moulds are just two examples of a wide range of species and biological processes that use positive feedback mechanisms to reach decisions. Here we use a generic, experimentally validated model of positive feedback between group members to show that the probability of taking the best of options depends crucially on the strength of feedback. We show how the probability of choosing the best option can be maximized by applying an optimal feedback strength. Importantly, this optimal value depends on the number of options, so that when we change the number of options the preference of the group changes, producing apparent “irrationalities”. We thus reinterpret the idea that collectives show "rational" or "irrational" preferences as being a necessary consequence of the use of positive feedback. We argue that positive feedback is a heuristic which often produces fast and accurate group decision-making, but is always susceptible to apparent irrationality when studied under particular experimental conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0018901
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018901
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0018901&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0018901?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. Toshiyuki Nakagaki & Hiroyasu Yamada & Ágota Tóth, 2000. "Maze-solving by an amoeboid organism," Nature, Nature, vol. 407(6803), pages 470-470, September.
    2. Takao Sasaki & Stephen C. Pratt, 2011. "Emergence of group rationality from irrational individuals," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(2), pages 276-281.
    3. 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.
    4. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    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. Minsung Kim & Minki Kim, 2014. "Group-Wise Herding Behavior in Financial Markets: An Agent-Based Modeling Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-7, April.
    2. Natalia Zabzina & Audrey Dussutour & Richard P Mann & David J T Sumpter & Stamatios C Nicolis, 2014. "Symmetry Restoring Bifurcation in Collective Decision-Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Dussutour, Audrey & Nicolis, Stamatios C., 2013. "Flexibility in collective decision-making by ant colonies: Tracking food across space and time," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 32-38.
    4. Zabzina, Natalia, 2015. "A gradient flow approach to the model of positive feedback in decision-making," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 215-224.

    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. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    2. Flores, Alvaro & Berbeglia, Gerardo & Van Hentenryck, Pascal, 2019. "Assortment optimization under the Sequential Multinomial Logit Model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1052-1064.
    3. Christoph Engel, 2006. "The Difficult Reception of Rigorous Descriptive Social Science in the Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2006_1, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Kazagli, Evanthia & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2023. "A discrete choice modeling framework of heterogenous decision rules accounting for non-trading behavior," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    5. Jonathan C. Pettibone, 2012. "Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 513-523, July.
    6. Mandler, Michael, 2015. "Rational agents are the quickest," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 206-233.
    7. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    8. Banerjee, Priyodorshi & Das, Tanmoy, 2019. "Simultaneous decisions under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Boissonnet, Niels & Ghersengorin, Alexis & Gleyze, Simon, 2020. "Revealed Deliberate Preference Changes," MPRA Paper 101756, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. V. I. Danilov & A. Lambert-Mogiliansky, 2005. "Non-classical Measurement Theory: a Framework for Behavioral Sciences," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000899, David K. Levine.
    11. Cynthia Schuck-Paim & Lorena Pompilio & Alex Kacelnik, 2004. "State-Dependent Decisions Cause Apparent Violations of Rationality in Animal Choice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-1, November.
    12. Funk, Patrick & Davis, Alex & Vaishnav, Parth & Dewitt, Barry & Fuchs, Erica, 2020. "Individual inconsistency and aggregate rationality: Overcoming inconsistencies in expert judgment at the technical frontier," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    13. Lijia Shi & Lisa A. House & Zhifeng Gao, 2013. "Impact of Purchase Intentions on Full and Partial Bids in BDM Auctions: Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 707-718, September.
    14. Ram Rao & Ozge Turut, 2019. "New Product Preannouncement: Phantom Products and the Osborne Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3776-3799, August.
    15. Nasim Mousavi & Panagiotis Adamopoulos & Jesse Bockstedt, 2023. "The Decoy Effect and Recommendation Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1533-1553, December.
    16. Gao, Cai & Yan, Chao & Zhang, Zili & Hu, Yong & Mahadevan, Sankaran & Deng, Yong, 2014. "An amoeboid algorithm for solving linear transportation problem," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 398(C), pages 179-186.
    17. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2021. "When is fertility too low or too high? Population policy preferences of demographers around the world," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 75(2), pages 289-303, May.
    18. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Selin Atalay, A. & Blanchard, Simon J., 2009. "A three-way clusterwise multidimensional unfolding procedure for the spatial representation of context dependent preferences," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 3217-3230, June.
    19. Rocamora, Beatriz & Colombo, Sergio & Glenk, Klaus, 2014. "El impacto de las respuestas inconsistentes en las medidas de bienestar estimadas con el método del experimento de elección," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(02), pages 1-22, December.
    20. Andrew Adamatzky & Olivier Allard & Jeff Jones & Rachel Armstrong, 2017. "Evaluation of French motorway network in relation to slime mould transport networks," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 44(2), pages 364-383, March.

    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:pone00:0018901. 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.