↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

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

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
Title
From Social Network (Centralized vs. Decentralized) to Collective Decision-Making (Unshared vs. Shared Consensus)
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0032566
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cédric Sueur, Jean-Louis Deneubourg, Odile Petit

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 229 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 24%
Student > Master 39 17%
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 39 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 73 31%
Environmental Science 23 10%
Social Sciences 19 8%
Psychology 16 7%
Computer Science 16 7%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 47 20%