Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Information flow, opinion polling and collective intelligence in house-hunting social insects

By Nigel R. Franks, Stephen C. Pratt, Eamonn B. Mallon, Nicholas F. Britton and David J.T. Sumpter


The sharing and collective processing of information by certain insect societies is one of the reasons that they warrant the superlative epithet ‘super-organisms’ (Franks 1989, Am. Sci. 77, 138–145). We describe a detailed experimental and mathematical analysis of information exchange and decision-making in, arguably, the most difficult collective choices that social insects face: namely, house hunting by complete societies. The key issue is how can a complete colony select the single best nest-site among several alternatives? Individual scouts respond to the diverse information they have personally obtained about the quality of a potential nest-site by producing a recruitment signal. The colony then deliberates over (i.e. integrates) different incoming recruitment signals associated with different potential nest-sites to achieve a well-informed collective decision. We compare this process in honeybees and in the ant Leptothorax albipennis. Notwithstanding many differences—for example, honeybee colonies have 100 times more individuals than L. albipennis colonies—there are certain similarities in the fundamental algorithms these societies appear to employ when they are house hunting.\ud \ud Scout honeybees use the full power of the waggle dance to inform their nest-mates about the distance and direction of a potential nest-site (and they indicate the quality of a nest-site indirectly through the vigour of their dance), and yet individual bees perhaps only rarely make direct comparisons of such sites. By contrast, scouts from L. albipennis colonies often compare nest-sites, but they cannot directly inform one another of their estimation of the quality of a potential site. Instead, they discriminate between sites by initiating recruitment sooner to better ones. \ud \ud Nevertheless, both species do make use of forms of opinion polling. For example, scout bees that have formerly danced for a certain site cease such advertising and monitor the dances of others at random. That is, they act without prejudice. They neither favour nor disdain dancers that advocate the site they had formerly advertised or the alternatives. Thus, in general the bees are less well informed than they would be if they systematically monitored dances for alternative sites rather than spending their time reprocessing information they already have. However, as a result of their lack of prejudice, less time overall will be wasted in endless debate among stubborn and potentially biased bees. Among the ants, the opinions of nest-mates are also pooled effectively when scouts use a threshold population of their nest-mates present in a new nest-site as a cue to switch to more rapid recruitment. Furthermore, the ants’ reluctance to begin recruiting to poor nest-sites means that more time is available for the discovery and direct comparison of alternatives. Likewise, the retirement of honeybee scouts from dancing for a given site allows more time for other scouts to find potentially better sites. Thus, both the ants and the bees have time-lags built into their decision-making systems that should facilitate a compromise between thorough surveys for good nest-sites and relatively rapid decisions. We have also been able to show that classical mathematical models can illuminate the processes by which colonies are able to achieve decisions that are relatively swift and very well informed

Publisher: Royal Society of London
Year: 2002
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (eds) 1999a Information processing in social insects. doi
  2. 1999b Decision-making in foraging by social insects. doi
  3. 1999b The mystery of swarming honeybees: from individual behaviors to collective decisions. doi
  4. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. doi
  5. (1992). A path choice algorithm for ants. doi
  6. (1993). Algorithms for ant foraging. doi
  7. (1998). Analysis of ant foraging algorithms. doi
  8. (2000). Ants estimate area using Buffon’s doi
  9. (1989). Army ants: a collective intelligence.
  10. (1992). Brood sorting in ants: distributing the workload over the work-surface. doi
  11. (1999). Collective decisions and cognition in bees. doi
  12. (1961). Communication among social bees. doi
  13. (1957). Communication in swarm-bees searching for a new home. doi
  14. (1970). Communication of direction by the honey bee. doi
  15. (1995). Complex trails and simple algorithms in ant foraging. doi
  16. (2002). Deciding on a new home: how do honeybees agree? doi
  17. (1995). Division of labour in crisis management: task allocation during colony emigration in the ant Leptothorax unifasciatus (Latr.). doi
  18. (1992). Doing the right thing: ants, honeybees and naked mole-rats. doi
  19. (1997). Field survey of a monogynous leptothoracine ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): evidence of seasonal polydomy? doi
  20. (1999). Group decision-making in swarms of honeybees. doi
  21. (1985). Honeybee ecology: a study of adaptation in social life. doi
  22. (1985). Honeybees choosing a home prefer previously occupied cavities. doi
  23. (1999). House-hunting by honeybee swarms: collective decisions and individual behaviors. doi
  24. (2002). How honey-bees find a home.
  25. (1986). Individual specific trails in the ant Leptothorax affinis (Formicidae: Myrmicinae). doi
  26. (1999). Information flow in the social domain: how individuals decide what to do next. doi
  27. (2001). Life events and measurement. doi
  28. (2000). Life events scale. doi
  29. (1977). Measurement of nest cavity volume by the honeybee (Apis mellifera).
  30. (2001). Models of division of labour in social insects.
  31. (2002). Navigation using visual landmarks by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. doi
  32. (1978). Nest site selection by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. doi
  33. (2001). Nest-site selection in honeybees: how well do swarms implement the ‘best-of-N’ decision rule? doi
  34. (2000). Queen transport during ant colony emigration: a group-level adaptive behaviour. doi
  35. (2002). Quorum sensing, recruitment, and collective decisionmaking during colony emigration by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. doi
  36. (1955). Schwarmbienen auf Wohnungssuche. doi
  37. (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. doi
  38. (1997). Self-organizing nest construction in ants: individual worker behaviour and the nest’s dynamics. doi
  39. (1992). Self-organizing nest construction in ants: sophisticated building by blind bulldozing. doi
  40. (1995). Social evolution in ants. Monographs in behavioral ecology. doi
  41. (1978). Social organization of nest emigration in doi
  42. (1982). Some learning rules for acquiring information.
  43. (1980). Stochastic evolution of competing social groups. doi
  44. (2003). Strategies for choosing between alternatives with different attributes: exemplified by househunting ants. doi
  45. (1990). Success and dominance in ecosystems: the case of the social insects. Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany: Ecology Institute. doi
  46. (1992). Tactics of dance choice in honeybees: do foragers compare dances? doi
  47. (1993). Task allocation in ant colonies within variable environments (a study of temporal polyethism: experimental). doi
  48. (2002). The accuracy of Buffon’s needle: a rule of thumb used by ants to estimate area. doi
  49. (1990). The ants. doi
  50. (2001). The cavity-dwelling ant Leptothorax curvispinosus uses nest geometry to discriminate among potential homes. doi
  51. (1954). The dancing bees: an account of the life and senses of the honeybee. doi
  52. (1981). The mechanisms and energetics of honeybee swarm temperature regulation. doi
  53. (1979). The natural history of the flight of honeybee swarms. doi
  54. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. doi
  55. (2001). The use of edges in visual navigation by the ant Leptothorax albipennis. doi
  56. (1995). The wisdom of the hive. doi
  57. (1999). Vibration signal modulates the behaviour of househunting honeybees (Apis mellifera). doi
  58. (1988). Visual cues and trail-following idiosyncrasy in Leptothorax unifasciatus: an orientation process during foraging. doi
  59. (2001). Worker piping in honey bee swarms and its role in preparing for lift-off. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.