Avoiding costly mistakes in groups: The evolution of error management in collective decision making

Analogies for modeling belief dynamics

Belief dynamics has an important role in shaping our responses to natural and societal phenomena, ranging from climate change and pandemics to immigration and conflicts. Researchers often base their models of belief dynamics on analogies to other systems and processes, such as epidemics or ferromagnetism. Similar to other analogies, analogies for belief dynamics can help scientists notice and study properties of belief systems that they would not have noticed otherwise (conceptual mileage). However, forgetting the origins of an analogy may lead to some less appropriate inferences about belief dynamics (conceptual baggage). Here, we review various analogies for modeling belief dynamics, discuss their mileage and baggage, and offer recommendations for using analogies in model development.

Kurvers RHJ. A Cognitive Computational Approach to Social and Collective Decision-Making

Collective dynamics play a key role in everyday decision-making. Whether social influence promotes the spread of accurate information and ultimately results in adaptive behavior or leads to false information cascades and maladaptive social contagion strongly depends on the cognitive mechanisms underlying social interactions. Here we argue that cognitive modeling, in tandem with experiments that allow collective dynamics to emerge, can mechanistically link cognitive processes at the individual and collective levels. We illustrate the strength of this cognitive computational approach with two highly successful cognitive models that have been applied to interactive group experiments: evidence-accumulation and reinforcement-learning models. We show how these approaches make it possible to simultaneously study (a) how individual cognition drives social systems, (b) how social systems drive individual cognition, and (c) the dynamic feedback processes between the two layers.

Fast decisions reflect biases, slow decisions do not

Decisions are often made by heterogeneous groups of individuals, each with distinct initial biases and access to information of different quality. We show that in large groups of independent agents who accumulate evidence the first to decide are those with the strongest initial biases. Their decisions align with their initial bias, regardless of the underlying truth. In contrast, agents who decide last make decisions as if they were initially unbiased, and hence make better choices. We obtain asymptotic expressions in the large population limit that quantify how agents' initial inclinations shape early decisions. Our analysis shows how bias, information quality, and decision order interact in non-trivial ways to determine the reliability of decisions in a group.

Beyond collective intelligence: Collective adaptation

We develop a conceptual framework for studying collective adaptation in complex socio-cognitive systems, driven by dynamic interactions of social integration strategies, social environments and problem structures. Going beyond searching for 'intelligent' collectives, we integrate research from different disciplines and outline modelling approaches that can be used to begin answering questions such as why collectives sometimes fail to reach seemingly obvious solutions, how they change their strategies and network structures in response to different problems and how we can anticipate and perhaps change future harmful societal trajectories. We discuss the importance of considering path dependence, lack of optimization and collective myopia to understand the sometimes counterintuitive outcomes of collective adaptation. We call for a transdisciplinary, quantitative and societally useful social science that can help us to understand our rapidly changing and ever more complex societies, avoid collective disasters and reach the full potential of our ability to organize in adaptive collectives.