IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v16y2010i4d10.1007_s10588-010-9080-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of resource availability on consensus decision making in primates

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Zappala

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Brian Logan

    (University of Nottingham)

Abstract

There has recently been increasing interest in group decision making, and in particular the mechanisms through which a group of individuals can arrive at a consensus decision. In this paper we investigate the effects of resource availability upon consensus decision making in a primate group. We extend an existing agent-based model of primate decision making to incorporate a model of diminishing foraging returns, and show that the difficulty of obtaining energy from the environment has an impact on successful strategies for consensus decision making in such groups. Moreover, the introduction of diminishing returns also results in better agreement between the predictions of the model and field studies of a naturally occurring primate group.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Zappala & Brian Logan, 2010. "Effects of resource availability on consensus decision making in primates," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 400-415, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:16:y:2010:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-010-9080-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-010-9080-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-010-9080-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-010-9080-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. Conradt & T. J. Roper, 2003. "Group decision-making in animals," Nature, Nature, vol. 421(6919), pages 155-158, January.
    2. Robert Axelrod, 1997. "Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 97-05-048, Santa Fe Institute.
    3. Bruce Edmonds & David Hales, 2003. "Replication, Replication and Replication: Some Hard Lessons from Model Alignmen," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 6(4), pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Davide Secchi & Raffaello Seri, 2017. "Controlling for false negatives in agent-based models: a review of power analysis in organizational research," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 94-121, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Flaminio Squazzoni, 2010. "The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(2), pages 197-234.
    2. Matteo Richiardi, 2003. "The Promises and Perils of Agent-Based Computational Economics," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 29, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    3. Happe, K. & Kellermann, K., 2008. "Diese Modelle sind zu komplex! – oder doch nicht?: Experimentelles Design und Metamodellierung als möglicher Weg, das Kommunikationsproblem agentenbasierter Modelle in der Politikanalyse zu lösen," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    4. Günter Küppers & Johannes Lenhard, 2005. "Validation of Simulation: Patterns in the Social and Natural Sciences," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 8(4), pages 1-3.
    5. Andrew W. Bausch, 2014. "Evolving intergroup cooperation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 369-393, December.
    6. Ulfia A. Lenfers & Julius Weyl & Thomas Clemen, 2018. "Firewood Collection in South Africa: Adaptive Behavior in Social-Ecological Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Roland W. Scholz, 2018. "Ways and modes of utilizing Brunswik’s Theory of Probabilistic Functionalism: new perspectives for decision and sustainability research?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 99-117, March.
    8. Hedström, Peter & Wennberg, Karl, 2016. "Causal Mechanisms in Organization and Innovation Studies," Ratio Working Papers 284, The Ratio Institute.
    9. Giannoccaro, Ilaria, 2015. "Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 576-589.
    10. Konstantinos V Katsikopoulos & Andrew J King, 2010. "Swarm Intelligence in Animal Groups: When Can a Collective Out-Perform an Expert?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-5, November.
    11. Pietro Terna, 2000. "Sum: A Surprising (Un)Realistic Market - Building A Simple Stock Market Structure With Swarm," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 173, Society for Computational Economics.
    12. J. Gareth Polhill & Dawn C. Parker & Daniel Brown & Volker Grimm, 2008. "Using the ODD Protocol for Describing Three Agent-Based Social Simulation Models of Land-Use Change," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(2), pages 1-3.
    13. Newbery, Robert & Lean, Jonathan & Moizer, Jonathan & Haddoud, Mohamed, 2018. "Entrepreneurial identity formation during the initial entrepreneurial experience: The influence of simulation feedback and existing identity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 51-59.
    14. J. Gareth Polhill & Bruce Edmonds, 2007. "Open Access for Social Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 10(3), pages 1-10.
    15. Thitithep Sitthiyot, 2021. "Macroeconomic and financial management in an uncertain world: What can we learn from complexity science?," Papers 2112.15294, arXiv.org.
    16. Lilian N. Alessa & Melinda Laituri & C. Michael Barton, 2006. "An "All Hands" Call to the Social Science Community: Establishing a Community Framework for Complexity Modeling Using Agent Based Models and Cyberinfrastructure," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(4), pages 1-6.
    17. Happe, Kathrin & Kellermann, Konrad, 2007. "DIESE MODELLE SIND ZU KOMPLEX!-ODER DOCH NICHT?: EXPERIMENTELLES DESIGN UND METAMODELLIERUNG ALS MOGLICHER WEG, DAS KOMMUNIKATIONSPROBLEM AGENTENBASIERTER MODELLE IN DER POLITIKANALYSE ZU LOSEN (Germa," 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 7613, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    18. Jager, Wander & Janssen, Marco A., 2001. "Diffusion processes in demographic transitions: a prospect on using multi agent simulation to explore the role of cognitive strategies and social interactions," Research Report 01B40, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    19. Sina Hocke & Matthias Meyer & Iris Lorscheid, 2015. "Improving simulation model analysis and communication via design of experiment principles: an example from the simulation-based design of cost accounting systems," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 131-155, August.
    20. Healey, Mark P. & Bleda, Mercedes & Querbes, Adrien, 2021. "Opportunity evaluation in teams: A social cognitive model," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:16:y:2010:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-010-9080-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.