Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany.
Am Nat. 2013 Nov;182(5):592-610. doi: 10.1086/673253. Epub 2013 Sep 9.
Good decision making is important for the survival and fitness of stakeholders, but decisions usually involve uncertainty and conflict. We know surprisingly little about profitable decision-making strategies in conflict situations. On the one hand, sharing decisions with others can pool information and decrease uncertainty (swarm intelligence). On the other hand, sharing decisions can hand influence to individuals whose goals conflict. Thus, when should an animal share decisions with others? Using a theoretical model, we show that, contrary to intuition, decision sharing by animals with conflicting goals often increases individual gains as well as decision accuracy. Thus, conflict-far from hampering effective decision making-can improve decision outcomes for all stakeholders, as long as they share large-scale goals. In contrast, decisions shared by animals without conflict were often surprisingly poor. The underlying mechanism is that animals with conflicting goals are less correlated in individual choice errors. These results provide a strong argument in the interest of all stakeholders for not excluding other (e.g., minority) factions from collective decisions. The observed benefits of including diverse factions among the decision makers could also be relevant to human collective decision making.
好的决策对于利益相关者的生存和适应能力至关重要,但决策通常涉及不确定性和冲突。我们对冲突情况下有利可图的决策策略知之甚少。一方面,与他人分享决策可以汇集信息并降低不确定性(群体智能)。另一方面,分享决策可能会将权力交给目标冲突的个人。因此,动物何时应该与他人分享决策?我们使用理论模型表明,与直觉相反,具有冲突目标的动物的决策共享通常会增加个体收益和决策准确性。因此,冲突——远非阻碍有效决策——只要它们共享大规模目标,就可以为所有利益相关者改善决策结果。相比之下,没有冲突的动物共享的决策往往令人惊讶地糟糕。潜在的机制是,具有冲突目标的动物在个体选择错误方面相关性较低。这些结果强烈证明,为了所有利益相关者的利益,不应将其他(例如少数)派别排除在集体决策之外。决策者中包含不同派别所带来的好处也可能与人类的集体决策相关。