Advertisement

Collective Search in Concrete and Abstract Spaces

  • Robert L. Goldstone
  • Michael E. Roberts
  • Winter Mason
  • Todd Gureckis
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 21)

Our laboratory has been studying the emergence of collective search behavior from a complex systems perspective. We have developed an Internet-based experimental platform that allows groups of people to interact with each other in real-time on networked computers. The experiments implement virtual environments where participants can see the moment-to-moment actions of their peers and immediately respond to their environment. Agent-based computational models are used as accounts of the experimental results. We describe two paradigms for collective search: one in physical space and the other in an abstract problem space. The physical search situation concerns competitive foraging for resources by individuals inhabiting an environment consisting largely of other individuals foraging for the same resources. The abstract search concerns the dissemination of innovations in social networks. Across both scenarios, the group-level behavior that emerges reveals in- fluences of exploration and exploitation, bandwagon effects, population waves, and compromises between individuals using their own information and information obtained from their peers.

Keywords

Random Graph Global Maximum Problem Space Resource Pool Unimodal Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    H. Arrow, J. E. McGrath, and J. L. Berdahl. Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Axelrod. The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 4:203–226, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Bandura. Behavioral modification through modeling procedures. In L. Krasner and L. P. Ulmann, editors, Research in Behavior Modification: New Development and Implications, pages 310–340. Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. M. Baum and J. R. Kraft. Group choice: Competition, travel, and the ideal free distribution. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69:227–245, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. J. Blackmore. The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Boyd and P. J. Richerson. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, IL, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Bullnheimer, H. Dawid, and R. Zeller. Learning from own and foreign experience: Technological adaptation by imitating firms. Computational and Mathematical Organizational Theory, 4:267–282, 1998.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. S.-Y. Chwe. Structure and strategy in collective action. American Journal of Sociology, 105:128–156, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. B. Cialdini and N. J. Goldstein. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55:591–621, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Clark. Natural Born Cyborgs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Deutsch and H. B. Gerard. A study of normative and informative social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 51:629–636, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Dorigo, E. Bonabeau, and G. Theraulaz. Ant algorithms and stigmery. Future Generation Computer Systems, 16:851–871, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes. Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2003.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. A. Dugatkin. Sexual selection and imitation: Females copy the mate choice of others. American Naturalist, 139:1384–1389, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epicure: An agent-based foraging model. http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/Epicure.html. Last accessed January 2008.
  16. 16.
    S. D. Fretwell and H. J. Lucas. Ideal free distribution. Acta Biotheory, 19:16–21, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. R. Gallistel. The Organization of Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Gigone and R. Hastie. The impact of information on group judgment: A model and computer simulation. In J. H. Davis and E. Witte, editors, Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups, volume 1, pages 221–251. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. M. Gillis and D. L. Kramer. Ideal interference distributions: Population density and patch use by zebrafish. Animal Behavior, 35:1875–1882, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Gladwell. The Tipping Point. Little Brown, London, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. J. Godin and M. H. A. Keenleyside. Foraging on patchily distributed prey by a cichlid fish (Teleosti, Chichlideae): A test of the ideal free distribution theory. Animal Behavior, 32:120–131, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. L. Goldstone and B. C. Ashpole. Human foraging behavior in a virtual environment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11:508–514, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Ashpole, and M. E. Roberts. Knowledge of resources and competitors in human foraging. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12:81–87, 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. L. Goldstone and M. A. Janssen. Computational models of collective behavior. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9:424–430, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. L. Goldstone, A. Jones, and M. E. Roberts. Group path formation. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 36:611–620, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. L. Goldstone and M. E. Roberts. Self-organized trail systems in groups of humans. Complexity, 15:43–50, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    T. M. Gureckis and R. L. Goldstone. Thinking in groups. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14:293–311, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Hashimoto, S. Suzuki, Y. Takenoshita, J. Yamagiwa, A. K. Basabose, and T. Furuichi. How fruit abundance affects the chimpanzee party size: A comparison between four study sites. Primates, 44:77–81, 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Helbing, J. Keltsch, and P. Molnár. Modeling the evolution of human trail systems. Nature, 388:47–50, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    T. T. Hills. Animal foraging and the evolution of goal-directed cognition. Cognitive Science, 30:3–41, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. G. Howsman, D. O’Neil, and M. A. Craft. A stigmeric cooperative multi-robot control architecture. In J. Pollack, M. Bedau, P. Husbands, T. Ikegami, and R. A. Watson, editors, Artificial Life IX, pages 88–93. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. A. Janssen and W. Jager. Simulating market dynamics: The interactions of consumer psychology and structure of social networks. Artificial Life, 9:343–356, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. P. Kahan and A. Rapoport. Theories of Coalition Formation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1984.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. Kennedy, R. C. Eberhart, and Y. Shi. Swarm Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Kennedy and R. D. Gray. Can ecological theory predict the distribution of foraging animals? A critical analysis of experiments on the ideal free distribution. Oikos, 68:158–166, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Kleinberg. Navigation in a small world. Nature, 406:845, 2000.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. R. Kraft and W. M. Baum. Group choice: The ideal free distribution of human social behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76:21–42, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    B. Latané and M. J. Bourgeois. Dynamic social impact in electronic groups: Consolidation and clustering in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 46:35–47, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    B. Latané and T. L. L’Herrou. Spatial clustering in the conformity game: Dynamic social impact in electronic groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70:1218–1230, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    D. Lazer and A. Friedman. The parable of the hare and the tortoise: Small worlds, diversity, and system performance. KSG Working Paper RWP05-058, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2005.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    G. J. Madden, B. F. Peden, and T. Tamaguchi. Human group choice: Discrete-trial and free-operant tests of idea free distribution. Journal of the Experimental Analaysis of Behavior, 78:1–15, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    W. A. Mason, A. Jones, and R. L. Goldstone. Propagation of innovations in networked groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, in press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. N. Meltzoff. Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: Long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24:470–476, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    S. Milgram. The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2:60–67, 1967.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    M. Milinski. Competition for non-depleting resources: The ideal free distribution in sticklebacks. In A. C. Kamil, J. R. Krebs, and H. R. Pulliam, editors, Foraging Behavior, pages 363–388. Plenum Press, New York, 1987.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    A. Newell and H. A. Simon. Human Problem Solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    A. Nowak, J. Szamrej, and B. Latané. From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97:362–376, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    E. Ostrom, R. Gardner, and J. Walker. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1994.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    H. V. D. Parunak and S. A. Brueckner. Engineering swarming systems. In F. Bergenti, M.-P. Gleizes, and F. Zambonelli, editors, Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems, pages 341–376. Kluwer, Amsterdam, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Percepts and concepts laboratory. http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu. Last accessed January 2008.
  52. 52.
    P. Pirolli and S. Card. Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106:643–675, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    H. Pöysä, J. Elmberg, and K. Sjöberg. Habitat selection rules in breeding mallards (anas platyrhynchos): A test of two competing hypotheses. Oecologia, 114:283–287, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    H. R. Pulliam and B. J. Danielson. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: A landscape perspective on population dynamics. American Naturalist, 137:S50–S66, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    A. Rapoport, T. Kugler, S. Dugar, and E. Gisches. Choice of routes in congested traffic networks: Experimental tests of the braess paradox. In T. Kugler, J. C. Smith, T. Connolly, and Y.-J. Son, editors, Decision Modeling and Behavior in Uncertain and Complex Environments. Springer, New York, 2007.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    M. E. Roberts and R. L. Goldstone. EPICURE: Spatial and knowledge limitations in group foraging. Adaptive Behavior, 14:291–313, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    L. Rosenkopf and E. Abrahamson. Modeling reputational and information influences in threshold models of bandwagon innovation diffusion. Journal of Computational and Mathematical Organizational Theory, 5:361–384, 1999.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    A. K. Seth. Modeling group foraging: Individual suboptimality, interference, and a kind of matching. Adaptive Behavior, 9:67–91, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    M. Sherif. A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 187:1–60, 1935.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    D. Strang and M. Macy. In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Journal of Sociology, 107:147–182, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    J. J. Templeton and L. A. Giraldeau. Vicarious sampling: The use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patchy environment. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 38:105–114, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    G. Theraulaz and E. Bonabeau. Modeling the collective building of complex architectures in social insects with lattice swarms. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 177:381–387, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    P. M. Todd and G. Gigerenzer. Simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23:727–741, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz. Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393:440–442, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Goldstone
    • 1
  • Michael E. Roberts
    • 1
  • Winter Mason
    • 1
  • Todd Gureckis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations