Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Decision Making: Traditional Method

Decision Making: Traditional Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the traditional method includes calculating the critical value, testing the value of the test statistic using the sample data, and interpreting these values.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...

Decision Making

Decision Making

Decision-making is a fundamental cognitive process that involves evaluating alternatives and selecting among them. This process can range from simple choices, such as deciding what to wear, to complex decisions, like choosing a major in college or a career path. The complexity of the decision often dictates the approach we use, which can be broadly categorized into two types: automatic and controlled decision-making.
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...

Decision Making: P-value Method

Decision Making: P-value Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the P-value method includes calculating the P- value using the sample data and interpreting it.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...

Groupthink

Groupthink

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Groupthink is another phenomenon of conformity where modification of the opinions of members in a group aligns with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In such situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of...

Impact of Individuals on a Group

Impact of Individuals on a Group

In social psychology, the interplay between individuals and groups is a central concern, particularly regarding how individual actions and characteristics influence group processes and outcomes. While much research emphasizes the group's power in shaping individual behavior, it is equally significant to understand how individuals contribute to the functioning, development, and success of groups.Individual Roles in Group Productivity and Decision-MakingIndividuals are not passive participants in...

Reason and Intuition

Reason and Intuition

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

The ecology of competition: A theory of risk-reward environments in adaptive decision making.

Psychological review·2020

Same author

Collective animal decisions: preference conflict and decision accuracy.

Interface focus·2014

Same author

Swarm intelligence: when uncertainty meets conflict.

The American naturalist·2013

Same author

Models in animal collective decision-making: information uncertainty and conflicting preferences.

Interface focus·2013

Same author

Uninformed individuals promote democratic consensus in animal groups.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2011

Same author

Collective behaviour: When it pays to share decisions.

Nature·2011

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 14, 2026

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

Published on: January 19, 2019

Deciding group movements: where and when to go.

Larissa Conradt¹, Timothy J Roper

¹John Maynard Smith Building, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, UK. l.conradt@sussex.ac.uk

Behavioural Processes

|March 31, 2010

Summary

Collective animal movement requires consensus on timing and direction. Decision-sharing strategies evolve differently based on whether timing or spatial consensus is prioritized, impacting group cohesion.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 14, 2026

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

Published on: January 19, 2019

Area of Science:

Behavioral Ecology
Collective Animal Behavior
Evolutionary Game Theory

Background:

Cohesive group movement necessitates consensus on both the timing and spatial aspects of collective action.
The cost-benefit distributions of timing and spatial decisions differ, influencing the feasibility of compromise.
Consensus costs for timing decisions are generally less skewed among group members than for spatial decisions.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate how differences in consensus costs for timing versus spatial decisions influence the evolution of decision sharing in collective movement.
To explore the conditions under which sharing of timing decisions versus spatial decisions is favored evolutionarily.

Main Methods:

Theoretical modeling of collective decision-making processes.
Analysis of consensus costs and benefits in group movement scenarios.
Game-theoretic approaches to understand the evolution of decision sharing.

Main Results:

Compromises are more feasible in timing decisions (e.g., median preferred time) than in spatial decisions.
Consensus costs for collective timing decisions are less skewed than for spatial decisions.
Sharing in timing decisions evolves when conflicts are high relative to cohesion benefits; sharing in spatial decisions evolves in the opposite scenario.

Conclusions:

The distinct nature of timing and spatial decisions leads to different evolutionary pressures on decision-sharing mechanisms in animal groups.
Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of collective movement and the evolution of social behavior.