Field study shows group decision making not always the best

Aug 01, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Proportion of simulated individuals and colonies (population 100) selecting the better of two nests. Colonies perform better when the quality difference between the nests is small, but individuals choose more accurately when the difference is greater. Credit: PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304917110

(Phys.org) —A combined team of researchers from Arizona State University and Uppsala University in Sweden has found that collective decision making by ants doesn't always result in selecting the best option for adopting a new nest. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes experiments they conducted with ants and artificially lit nests to determine how the ants chose the best option.

Temnothorax rugatulus, a type of ant that lives in Arizona, builds its nest in the ground—it has to pick a spot first however, and they way an does so was the focus of this new effort. The team wanted to know if making was always superior to that of individual ants.

To find out, the researchers set up an environment where a of ants found itself in need of a new nest. Each test run involved a colony that had to choose between a control nest and one that varied in quality. Quality was based on how much light could enter the nest from holes that led to the surface. The more light, the lower the quality—ants like it dark and fewer mean less .

The team noted that when one of the nests was obviously far superior to the other, both the colony as a whole, and individual ants more often chose the better option. What was surprising, however, was that individuals had a slightly better hit rate then the colony as a whole.

When a colony "decides" it needs a new nest, scout ants are sent out to find a new site. When one of the scout ants finds one it likes, it releases a chemical that attracts another of the colony members. If that member also likes the site it too will release a chemical attracting another ant and so on. The site that gets the most "votes" is the one eventually chosen by the colony. But, when a single ant is forced (by the researchers) to make a decision about which site to pick, it has to look at all the options and make a decision on its own—that takes more time than the multiple ant approach because in that scenario, individual ants only ever review one site—its more efficient. It's also more likely to lead to errors of course and that's why the colony as a whole tended to choose the wrong best site more often than the single ants—when the choice was obvious—who could make the decision without having to waste time thinking it over.

Explore further: Green spaces don't ensure biodiversity in urban areas

More information: Ant colonies outperform individuals when a sensory discrimination task is difficult but not when it is easy, PNAS, Published online before print July 29, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304917110

Abstract
"Collective intelligence" and "wisdom of crowds" refer to situations in which groups achieve more accurate perception and better decisions than solitary agents. Whether groups outperform individuals should depend on the kind of task and its difficulty, but the nature of this relationship remains unknown. Here we show that colonies of Temnothorax ants outperform individuals for a difficult perception task but that individuals do better than groups when the task is easy. Subjects were required to choose the better of two nest sites as the quality difference was varied. For small differences, colonies were more likely than isolated ants to choose the better site, but this relationship was reversed for large differences. We explain these results using a mathematical model, which shows that positive feedback between group members effectively integrates information and sharpens the discrimination of fine differences. When the task is easier the same positive feedback can lock the colony into a suboptimal choice. These results suggest the conditions under which crowds do or do not become wise.

Related Stories

How house-hunting ants choose the best home

Apr 22, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Direct comparison of alternatives isn’t always the best way to make a decision - at least if you’re an ant. House-hunting rock ants collectively manage to choose the best nest-site without ...

Chemical warfare of stealthy silverfish

Dec 01, 2011

A co-evolutionary arms race exists between social insects and their parasites. Army ants (Leptogenys distinguenda) share their nests with several parasites such as beetles, snails and spiders. They also s ...

Recommended for you

'Divide and rule'—raven politics

7 hours ago

Mythology has attributed many supernatural features to ravens. Studies on the cognitive abilities of ravens have indeed revealed that they are exceptionally intelligent. Ravens live in complex social groups ...

Science casts light on sex in the orchard

Oct 30, 2014

Persimmons are among the small club of plants with separate sexes—individual trees are either male or female. Now scientists at the University of California, Davis, and Kyoto University in Japan have discovered ...

Four new dragon millipedes found in China

Oct 30, 2014

A team of speleobiologists from the South China Agriculture University and the Russian Academy of Sciences have described four new species of the dragon millipedes from southern China, two of which seem to ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2013
Interesting. But it sort of makes sense that only occasionally connected agents will make worse decisions (albeit much faster) than one agent with full information.
It also speaks volumes about the brain where all decisions (neuron fires yes/no) is a summation of excitatory inhibitory potential from the immediate neighborhood - without 'knowledge' of information/state further away.

Tradoff speed vs. decision quality as applied to parallel vs. sequential decision making.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2013
If group decision making were optimal, the traitors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. would never have been elected.
full_disclosure
1.7 / 5 (17) Aug 01, 2013


If group decision making were optimal, the traitors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. would never have been elected.


Hyper partisan idiot...
aroc91
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2013
If group decision making were optimal, the traitors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. would never have been elected.


I'm looking forward to VendicarF. When's he going to show up?
full_disclosure
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2013
If group decision making were optimal, the traitors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. would never have been elected.


I'm looking forward to VendicarF. When's he going to show up?


Ha ha....choice...
VendicarE
4 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2013
If group decision making were optimal, the traitors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. would never have been elected.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.