Reaching a Consensus: Terminology and Concepts Used in Coordination and Decision-Making Research

Research on coordination and decision-making in humans and nonhuman primates has increased considerably throughout the last decade. However, terminology has been used inconsistently, hampering the broader integration of results from different studies. In this short article, we provide a glossary containing the central terms of coordination and decision-making research. The glossary is based on previous definitions that have been critically revised and annotated by the participants of the symposium “Where next? Coordination and decision-making in primate groups” at the XXIIIth Congress of the International Primatological Society (IPS) in Kyoto, Japan. We discuss a number of conceptual and methodological issues and highlight consequences for their implementation. In summary, we recommend that future studies on coordination and decision-making in animal groups do not use the terms “combined decision” and “democratic/despotic decision-making.” This will avoid ambiguity as well as anthropocentric connotations. Further, we demonstrate the importance of 1) taxon-specific definitions of coordination parameters (initiation, leadership, followership, termination), 2) differentiation between coordination research on individual-level process and group-level outcome, 3) analyses of collective action processes including initiation and termination, and 4) operationalization of successful group movements in the field to collect meaningful and comparable data across different species

Photographic protocol for image acquisition in craniofacial microsomia

Craniofacial microsomia (CFM) is a congenital condition associated with orbital, mandibular, ear, nerve, and soft tissue anomalies. We present a standardized, two-dimensional, digital photographic protocol designed to capture the common craniofacial features associated with CFM

Communication and Cognition in Primate Group Movement

We here review the communicative and cognitive processes underpinning collective group movement in animals. Generally, we identify 2 major axes to explain the dynamics of decision making in animal or human groups or aggregations: One describes whether the behavior is largely determined by simple rules such as keeping a specific distance from the neighbor, or whether global information is also factored in. The second axis describes whether or not the individual constituents of the group have overlapping or diverging interests. We then review the available evidence for baboons, which have been particularly well studied, but we also draw from further studies on other nonhuman primate species. Baboons and other nonhuman primates may produce specific signals in the group movement context, such as the notifying behavior of male hamadryas baboons at the departure from the sleeping site, or clear barks that are given by chacma baboons that have lost contact with the group or specific individuals. Such signals can be understood as expressions of specific motivational states of the individuals, but there is no evidence that the subjects intend to alter the knowledge state of the recipients. There is also no evidence for shared intentionality. The cognitive demands that are associated with decision making in the context of group coordination vary with the amount of information and possibly conflicting sources of information that need to be integrated. Thus, selective pressures should favor the use of signals that maintain group cohesion, while recipients should be selected to be able to make the decision that is in their own best interest in light of all the available information

Initiative, Personality and Leadership in Pairs of Foraging Fish

Studies of coordinated movement have found that, in many animal species, bolder individuals are more likely to initiate movement and shyer individuals to follow. Here, we show that in pairs of foraging stickleback fish, leadership is not merely a passive consequence of temperamental differences. Instead, the act of initiating a joint foraging trip out of cover itself brings about a change in the role that an individual plays throughout the subsequent trip, and success in recruiting a partner affects an individual's tendency to initiate the next trip. On each joint trip, whichever fish took the initiative in leading out of cover gains greater influence over its partner's behaviour, which persists even after several changes in position (i.e. termination attempts and re-joining). During any given trip, the initiator is less responsive to its partner's movements than during trips initiated by the partner. An individual's personality had an important effect on its response to failure to recruit a partner: while bold fish were unaffected by failures to initiate a joint trip, shy individuals were less likely to attempt another initiation after a failure. This difference provides a positive feedback mechanism that can partially stabilise social roles within the pair, but it is not strong enough to prevent occasional swaps, with individuals dynamically adjusting their responses to one another as they exchange roles

From Social Network (Centralized vs. Decentralized) to Collective Decision-Making (Unshared vs. Shared Consensus)

Relationships we have with our friends, family, or colleagues influence our personal decisions, as well as decisions we make together with others. As in human beings, despotism and egalitarian societies seem to also exist in animals. While studies have shown that social networks constrain many phenomena from amoebae to primates, we still do not know how consensus emerges from the properties of social networks in many biological systems. We created artificial social networks that represent the continuum from centralized to decentralized organization and used an agent-based model to make predictions about the patterns of consensus and collective movements we observed according to the social network. These theoretical results showed that different social networks and especially contrasted ones – star network vs. equal network - led to totally different patterns. Our model showed that, by moving from a centralized network to a decentralized one, the central individual seemed to lose its leadership in the collective movement's decisions. We, therefore, showed a link between the type of social network and the resulting consensus. By comparing our theoretical data with data on five groups of primates, we confirmed that this relationship between social network and consensus also appears to exist in animal societies