Squabbling meerkats make better decisions

Dec 06, 2013 by Kerstin Skork
Meerkat. Credit: Wikipedia/Fir0002/Flagstaffotos/Under the GFDL v1.2.

Conflicting interests within a group can lead to better collective decisions – if you're a social animal such as a meerkat – according to new research by a team of biologists and political scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the London School of Economics.

The research, published in the November issue of the journal The American Naturalist, shows that far from hampering decision-making, conflict can lead to better results. However, this depends on individual animals sharing the 's overall goal to, for example, search for food, avoid becoming prey, to shelter or rest. The researchers developed a decision-making model which demonstrates that if individuals in a group have slightly different small-scale goals they are less likely to make the same mistake as another individual in the group, than would be predicted by 'chance'. The differing goals within a group are a result of animals trying to optimise their own personal gains from a decision.

Professor Christian List, one of the researchers from LSE, said: "Collective decisions in groups where there are lots of minor disagreements actually offset errors made by individuals. Counterintuitively, this means that the 'quality' of a decision for a group as a whole may improve with the number of differing decision-makers within it – although this plateaus at a certain number of animals. In these kinds of groups it is better to share decisions with others than to make decisions independently, with like-minded individuals only, or to follow a dictator or leader."

For example, if there are two patches of ground and one is good for food and the other is not, then a group with diverse goals is much more likely to choose the good patch accurately than the group with uniform goals. In this way, everyone in the group profits from the 'conflict'. Decisions are made, in spite of the conflict, because it is not usually in the interest of a social group to fragment.

Dr Larissa Conradt, one of the authors of the research from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and an expert in animal group decisions, said: "Our results showed that shared decisions, made by animals without conflict, were often surprisingly poor. It's possible that this could be applicable to human collective decision making and would provide a strong argument for not excluding different or minority factions from ." Previous studies that have looked at 'swarm intelligence' in biology have largely ignored the issue of conflict. However, individuals within animal groups often differ on smaller-scale goals, because of their personal needs. Vulnerable animals might prefer a safer migration route over a shorter one – in contrast to a stronger animal. Smaller animals might choose a foraging patch with higher forage quality while larger might favour a patch with a higher quantity of food.

Explore further: Scientists discover that ants, like humans, can change their priorities

More information: Conradt, L., List, C., Roper, T. J. "Swarm Intelligence: When Uncertainty Meets Conflict." American Naturalist Volume 182, Issue 5 (2013) (DOI: 10.1086/673253)

Related Stories

Higher emotional intelligence leads to better decision-making

Nov 19, 2013

The anxiety people feel making investment decisions may have more to do with the traffic they dealt with earlier than the potential consequences they face with the investment, but not if the decision-maker has high emotional ...

Larger groups make better decisions

Jan 26, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A study at the University of Sydney shows for the first time that larger social groups make faster, safer and more accurate decisions.

Recommended for you

Rising temperatures can be hard on dogs

Jul 25, 2014

The "dog days of summer" are here, but don't let the phrase fool you. This hot time of year can be dangerous for your pup, says a Kansas State University veterinarian.

Monkeys fear big cats less, eat more, with humans around

Jul 25, 2014

Some Monkeys in South Africa have been found to regard field scientists as human shields against predators and why not if the alternative is death by leopard? The researchers found the monkeys felt far safer ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
5 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2013
Yes, better decisions IF you're a social animal, like meerkats, all created equal. Not if you're a progressive cacocratic democracy electing the densest sludge.
QuixoteJ
not rated yet Dec 06, 2013
Or the meerkats could just say "hakuna matata" and forget about making decisions about anything.

I believe this does translate to humans to some degree, when we are in purely social situations, perhaps.

Incidentally, congrats to Kerstin Skork for a properly-structured well-written article!