Group decision-making in animal societies
Individuals need to coordinate their activities to benefit from group living. Thus group decisions are essential for societies, especially if group members cooperate with each other. Models show that shared (democratic) decisions outperform unshared (despotic) decisions, even if individuals disagree about actions. This is surprising as in most other contexts, differences in individual preferences lead to sex-, age-, or kin-specific behaviour. Empirical studies testing the predictions of the theoretical models have only recently begun to emerge. This applies particularly to group decisions in fission-fusion societies, where individuals can avoid decisions that are not in their interest. After outlining the basic ideas and theoretical models on group decision-making I focus on the available empirical studies. Originally most of the relevant studies have been on social insects and fish but recently an increasing number of studies on mammals and birds have been published, including some that deal with wild long-lived animals living in complex societies. This includes societies where group members have different interests, as in most mammals, and which have been less studied compared to eusocial insects that normally have no conflict among their colony members about what to do. I investigate whether the same decision rules apply in societies with conflict and without conflict, and outline open questions that remain to be studied. The chapter concludes with a synthesis on what is known about group decision-making in animals and an outlook on what I think should be done to answer the open questions.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aureli F, Schaffner CM, Boesch C, Breader SK, Call J, Chapman CA, Connor R, Di Fiore A, Dunbar RIM, Henzi SP, Holekamp K, Korstjens AH, Layton R, Lee P, Lehmann J, Manson JH, Ramos-Fernandez G, Strier KB, van Schaik CP, Boehm C, Izar P, Kreth G, Kummer H, Talebi M, Yamagiwa J (2008) Fission-fusion dynamics: new research frameworks. Curr Anthropol 49:627-654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Byrne RW (2000) How monkeys find their way: leadership, coordination, and cognitive maps of African baboons. In: Boinski S, Garber PA (eds) On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Camazine S, Deneubourg JL, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring Animal Social Networks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Furrer RD, Kunc HP, Manser MB (submitted) Variable leadership in the lowskew, cooperatively breeding banded mongoose is influenced by reproductive stateGoogle Scholar
- Harcourt AH (1992) Coalitions and alliances: are primates more complex than non-primates? In: Harcourt AH, de Waal FBM (eds) Coalitions and Alliances in Human and Non-Human Animals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in Groups. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kummer H (1968) Social Organisations of Hamadryas Baboons. A Field Study. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Pretzlaff I, Kerth G, Dausmann KH (2010) Communally breeding bats use physiological and behavioral adjustments to optimize daily energy expenditure. Naturwissenschaften, in pressGoogle Scholar
- Prins HHT (1996) Ecology and Behaviour of the African Buffalo: Social Inequality and Decision Making. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Schaller GB (1963) The Mountain Gorilla: Ecology and Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
- Seeley TD, Visscher PK, Passino KM (2006) Group decision making in honey bee swarms. Am Sci 94:220-229Google Scholar
- Whitehead H (2008) Analysing Animal Societies: Quantitative Methods for Vertebrate Social Analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar