Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

Collective animal decisions: preference conflict and decision accuracy

Social animals frequently share decisions that involve uncertainty and conflict. It has been suggested that conflict can enhance decision accuracy. In order to judge the practical relevance of such a suggestion, it is necessary to explore how general such findings are. Using a model, I examine whether conflicts between animals in a group with respect to preferences for avoiding false positives versus avoiding false negatives could, in principle, enhance the accuracy of collective decisions. I found that decision accuracy nearly always peaked when there was maximum conflict in groups in which individuals had different preferences. However, groups with no preferences were usually even more accurate. Furthermore, a relatively slight skew towards more animals with a preference for avoiding false negatives decreased the rate of expected false negatives versus false positives considerably (and vice versa), while resulting in only a small loss of decision accuracy. I conclude that in ecological situations in which decision accuracy is crucial for fitness and survival, animals cannot 'afford' preferences with respect to avoiding false positives versus false negatives. When decision accuracy is less crucial, animals might have such preferences. A slight skew in the number of animals with different preferences will result in the group avoiding that type of error more that the majority of group members prefers to avoid. The model also indicated that knowing the average success rate ('base rate') of a decision option can be very misleading, and that animals should ignore such base rates unless further information is available.

Swarm intelligence: when uncertainty meets conflict

Good decision making is important for the survival and fitness of stakeholders, but decisions usually involve uncertainty and conflict. We know surprisingly little about profitable decision-making strategies in conflict situations. On the one hand, sharing decisions with others can pool information and decrease uncertainty (swarm intelligence). On the other hand, sharing decisions can hand influence to individuals whose goals conflict. Thus, when should an animal share decisions with others? Using a theoretical model, we show that, contrary to intuition, decision sharing by animals with conflicting goals often increases individual gains as well as decision accuracy. Thus, conflict-far from hampering effective decision making-can improve decision outcomes for all stakeholders, as long as they share large-scale goals. In contrast, decisions shared by animals without conflict were often surprisingly poor. The underlying mechanism is that animals with conflicting goals are less correlated in individual choice errors. These results provide a strong argument in the interest of all stakeholders for not excluding other (e.g., minority) factions from collective decisions. The observed benefits of including diverse factions among the decision makers could also be relevant to human collective decision making.

Pairs of pigeons act as behavioural units during route learning and co-navigational leadership conflicts

In many species, group members obtain benefits from moving collectively, such as enhanced foraging efficiency or increased predator detection. In situations where the group's decision involves integrating individual preferences, group cohesion can lead to more accurate outcomes than solitary decisions. In homing pigeons, a classic model in avian orientation studies, individuals learn habitual routes home, but whether and how co-navigating birds acquire and share route-based information is unknown. Using miniature GPS loggers, we examined these questions by first training pairs (the smallest possible flocks) of pigeons together, and then releasing them with other pairs that had received separate pair-training. Our results show that, much like solitary individuals, pairs of birds are able to establish idiosyncratic routes that they recapitulate together faithfully. Also, when homing with other pairs they exhibit a transition from a compromise- to a leadership-like mechanism of conflict resolution as a function of the degree of disagreement (distance separating the two preferred routes) between the two pairs, although pairs tolerate a greater range of disagreements prior to the transition than do single birds. We conclude that through shared experiences during past decision-making, pairs of individuals can become units so closely coordinated that their behaviour resembles that of single birds. This has implications for the behaviour of larger groups, within which certain individuals have closer social affiliations or share a history of previous associations.

Female Bechstein's bats adjust their group decisions about communal roosts to the level of conflict of interests

Most social animals depend on group decisions for coordination. Recent models suggest that the level of interindividual conflict strongly influences whether groups reach a consensus during decision making. However, few experimental studies have explored how wild animals make group decisions in situations with conflicting interests. Such experimental data are particularly lacking for animal societies with regular fission and fusion of subgroups. In this long-term study, we varied the level of conflict of interest among members of three wild Bechstein's bat (Myotis bechsteinii) colonies with high fission-fusion dynamics experimentally to explore whether the bats adapt their group decisions about communal roosts accordingly. In situations with low levels of conflict of interest, a minority of bats experiencing a roost as suitable was sufficient for a group consensus to use it communally. In contrast, if their interests diverged strongly, the bats no longer sought a compromise, but based their roosting decisions on individual preferences instead. Our results demonstrate that the rules applied to make group decisions can vary with the level of conflict among the individual interests of group members. Our findings are in agreement with predictions of the models and provide evidence for highly flexible group decisions within species.

Relative importance of social status and physiological need in determining leadership in a social forager

Group decisions on the timing of mutually exclusive activities pose a dilemma: monopolized decision-making by a single leader compromises the optimal timing of activities by the others, while independent decision-making by all group members undermines group coherence. Theory suggests that initiation of foraging should be determined by physiological demand in social foragers, thereby resolving the dilemma of group coordination. However, empirical support is scant, perhaps because intrinsic qualities predisposing individuals to leadership (social status, experience or personality), or their interactions with satiation level, have seldom been simultaneously considered. Here, we examine which females initiated foraging in eider (Somateria mollissima) brood-rearing coalitions, characterized by female dominance hierarchies and potentially large individual differences in energy requirements due to strenuous breeding effort. Several physiological and social factors, except for female breeding experience and boldness towards predators, explained foraging initiation. Initiators spent a larger proportion of time submerged during foraging bouts, had poorer body condition and smaller structural size, but they were also aggressive and occupied central positions. Initiation probability also declined with female group size as expected given random assignment of initiators. However, the relative importance of physiological predictors of leadership propensity (active foraging time, body condition, structural size) exceeded those of social predictors (aggressiveness, spatial position) by an order of magnitude. These results confirm recent theoretical work suggesting that 'leading according to need' is an evolutionary viable strategy regardless of group heterogeneity or underlying dominance structure.

Decision-making theories: linking the disparate research areas of individual and collective cognition

In order to maximize their fitness, animals have to deal with different environmental and social factors that affect their everyday life. Although the way an animal behaves might enhance its fitness or survival in regard to one factor, it could compromise them regarding another. In the domain of decision sciences, research concerning decision making focuses on performances at the individual level but also at the collective one. However, between individual and collective decision making, different terms are used resulting in little or no connection between both research areas. In this paper, we reviewed how different branches of decision sciences study the same concept, mainly called speed-accuracy trade-off, and how the different results are on the same track in terms of showing the optimality of decisions. Whatever the level, individual or collective, each decision might be defined with three parameters: time or delay to decide, risk and accuracy. We strongly believe that more progress would be possible in this domain of research if these different branches were better linked, with an exchange of their results and theories. A growing amount of literature describes economics in humans and eco-ethology in birds making compromises between starvation, predation and reproduction. Numerous studies have been carried out on social cognition in primates but also birds and carnivores, and other publications describe market or reciprocal exchanges of commodities. We therefore hope that this paper will lead these different areas to a common decision science.

Decision-making in pigeon flocks: a democratic view of leadership

When travelling in groups, animals frequently have to make decisions on the direction of travel. These decisions can be based on consensus, when all individuals take part in the decision (i.e. democratic decision; social information), or leadership, when one member or a minority of members make the decision (i.e. despotic decision; personal information). Here we investigated whether decision-making on the navigation of small flocks is based on democratic or despotic decisions. Using individual and flock releases as the experimental approach, we compared the homing performances of homing pigeons that fly singly and in groups of three. Our findings show that although small groups were either governed (i.e. when individuals in the flock had age differences) or not (i.e. when individuals in the flock had the same age) by leaders, with concern to decision-making they were all ruled by democratic decisions. Moreover, the individual homing performances were not associated with leadership. Because true leaders did not assume right away the front position in the flock, we suggest that as in human groups, starting from a central position is more effective as it allows leaders to not only transmit their own information but also to average the tendencies of the other group members. Together, the results highlight the importance of democratic decisions in group decision-making.

Spontaneous flocking in human groups

Flocking behaviour, as a type of self-organised collective behaviour, is described as the spatial formation of groups without global control and explicit inter-individual recruitment signals. It can be observed in many animals, such as bird flocks, shoals or herds of ungulates. Spatial attraction between humans as the central component of flocking behaviour has been simulated in a number of seminal models but it has not been detected experimentally in human groups so far. The two other sub-processes of this self-organised collective movement - collision avoidance and alignment - are excluded or held constant respectively in this study. We created a computer-based, multi-agent game where human players, represented as black dots, moved on a virtual playground. The participants were deprived of social cues about each other and could neither communicate verbally nor nonverbally. They played two games: (1) Single Game, where other players were invisible, and (2) Joint Game, where each player could see players' positions in a local radius around himself/herself. We found that individuals approached their neighbours spontaneously if their positions were visible, leading to less spatial dispersion of the whole group compared to moving alone. We conclude that human groups show the basic component of flocking behaviour without being explicitly instructed or rewarded to do so.

Temperament and hunger interact to determine the emergence of leaders in pairs of foraging fish

Studies on leadership have focused either on physiological state as the key predictor (i.e. “leading according to need”), or else on temperamental asymmetries among group members (i.e. intrinsic leadership). In this paper, we explore how both factors interact in determining the emergence of leaders. We observed pairs of sticklebacks with varying degrees of temperamental difference, and recorded their movements back and forth between a safe covered area and a risky foraging area, both before and after satiating one of the two pair members (but not the other). Before satiation, when the fish had similar hunger levels, temperament was a good predictor of social roles, with the bolder member of a pair leading and the shyer member following. The effect of satiation depended on which fish received the additional food. When the shyer member of a pair was fed, and consequently became less active, the bolder fish did not change its behaviour but continued to lead. By contrast, when the bolder member of a pair was fed, and consequently initiated fewer trips out of cover, the shyer partner compensated by initiating trips more frequently itself. In pairs that differed only a little in temperament, feeding the bolder fish actually led to a role reversal, with the shyer fish emerging as a leader in the majority of joint trips out of cover. Our results show that leadership emerges as the consequence of multiple factors, and that their interaction can be complex.

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

Collective decision-making plays a central part in the lives of many social animals. Two important factors that influence collective decision-making are information uncertainty and conflicting preferences. Here, I bring together, and briefly review, basic models relating to animal collective decision-making in situations with information uncertainty and in situations with conflicting preferences between group members. The intention is to give an overview about the different types of modelling approaches that have been employed and the questions that they address and raise. Despite the use of a wide range of different modelling techniques, results show a coherent picture, as follows. Relatively simple cognitive mechanisms can lead to effective information pooling. Groups often face a trade-off between decision accuracy and speed, but appropriate fine-tuning of behavioural parameters could achieve high accuracy while maintaining reasonable speed. The right balance of interdependence and independence between animals is crucial for maintaining group cohesion and achieving high decision accuracy. In conflict situations, a high degree of decision-sharing between individuals is predicted, as well as transient leadership and leadership according to needs and physiological status. Animals often face crucial trade-offs between maintaining group cohesion and influencing the decision outcome in their own favour. Despite the great progress that has been made, there remains one big gap in our knowledge: how do animals make collective decisions in situations when information uncertainty and conflict of interest operate simultaneously?

Communication and Cognition in Primate Group Movement

We here review the communicative and cognitive processes underpinning collective group movement in animals. Generally, we identify 2 major axes to explain the dynamics of decision making in animal or human groups or aggregations: One describes whether the behavior is largely determined by simple rules such as keeping a specific distance from the neighbor, or whether global information is also factored in. The second axis describes whether or not the individual constituents of the group have overlapping or diverging interests. We then review the available evidence for baboons, which have been particularly well studied, but we also draw from further studies on other nonhuman primate species. Baboons and other nonhuman primates may produce specific signals in the group movement context, such as the notifying behavior of male hamadryas baboons at the departure from the sleeping site, or clear barks that are given by chacma baboons that have lost contact with the group or specific individuals. Such signals can be understood as expressions of specific motivational states of the individuals, but there is no evidence that the subjects intend to alter the knowledge state of the recipients. There is also no evidence for shared intentionality. The cognitive demands that are associated with decision making in the context of group coordination vary with the amount of information and possibly conflicting sources of information that need to be integrated. Thus, selective pressures should favor the use of signals that maintain group cohesion, while recipients should be selected to be able to make the decision that is in their own best interest in light of all the available information.

Neural decoding of collective wisdom with multi-brain computing

Group decisions and even aggregation of multiple opinions lead to greater decision accuracy, a phenomenon known as collective wisdom. Little is known about the neural basis of collective wisdom and whether its benefits arise in late decision stages or in early sensory coding. Here, we use electroencephalography and multi-brain computing with twenty humans making perceptual decisions to show that combining neural activity across brains increases decision accuracy paralleling the improvements shown by aggregating the observers' opinions. Although the largest gains result from an optimal linear combination of neural decision variables across brains, a simpler neural majority decision rule, ubiquitous in human behavior, results in substantial benefits. In contrast, an extreme neural response rule, akin to a group following the most extreme opinion, results in the least improvement with group size. Analyses controlling for number of electrodes and time-points while increasing number of brains demonstrate unique benefits arising from integrating neural activity across different brains. The benefits of multi-brain integration are present in neural activity as early as 200 ms after stimulus presentation in lateral occipital sites and no additional benefits arise in decision related neural activity. Sensory-related neural activity can predict collective choices reached by aggregating individual opinions, voting results, and decision confidence as accurately as neural activity related to decision components. Estimation of the potential for the collective to execute fast decisions by combining information across numerous brains, a strategy prevalent in many animals, shows large time-savings. Together, the findings suggest that for perceptual decisions the neural activity supporting collective wisdom and decisions arises in early sensory stages and that many properties of collective cognition are explainable by the neural coding of information across multiple brains. Finally, our methods highlight the potential of multi-brain computing as a technique to rapidly and in parallel gather increased information about the environment as well as to access collective perceptual/cognitive choices and mental states.

A simple threshold rule is sufficient to explain sophisticated collective decision-making

Decision-making animals can use slow-but-accurate strategies, such as making multiple comparisons, or opt for simpler, faster strategies to find a 'good enough' option. Social animals make collective decisions about many group behaviours including foraging and migration. The key to the collective choice lies with individual behaviour. We present a case study of a collective decision-making process (house-hunting ants, Temnothorax albipennis), in which a previously proposed decision strategy involved both quality-dependent hesitancy and direct comparisons of nests by scouts. An alternative possible decision strategy is that scouting ants use a very simple quality-dependent threshold rule to decide whether to recruit nest-mates to a new site or search for alternatives. We use analytical and simulation modelling to demonstrate that this simple rule is sufficient to explain empirical patterns from three studies of collective decision-making in ants, and can account parsimoniously for apparent comparison by individuals and apparent hesitancy (recruitment latency) effects, when available nests differ strongly in quality. This highlights the need to carefully design experiments to detect individual comparison. We present empirical data strongly suggesting that best-of-n comparison is not used by individual ants, although individual sequential comparisons are not ruled out. However, by using a simple threshold rule, decision-making groups are able to effectively compare options, without relying on any form of direct comparison of alternatives by individuals. This parsimonious mechanism could promote collective rationality in group decision-making.

Evolution of personality differences in leadership

When members of a group differ in their preferred course of action, coordination poses a challenge. Leadership offers one way to resolve this difficulty, but the evolution of leaders and followers is itself poorly understood. Existing discussions have frequently attributed leadership to differences in information or need among individuals. Here, however, we show that in an n-player, repeated coordination game, selection leads to evolutionary branching and diversification in intrinsic leadership among the members of a population even in the absence of any variation in state. When individuals interact in pairs, repeated branching is possible; when individuals interact in larger groups, the typical outcome is a single branching event leading to a dimorphism featuring extreme intrinsic leaders and followers. These personality types emerge and are maintained by frequency-dependent selection, because leaders gain by imposing their preferences on followers, but fail to coordinate effectively when interacting with other leaders. The fraction of intrinsic leaders in the population increases with the degree of conflict among group members, with both types common only at intermediate levels of conflict; when conflict is weak, most individuals are intrinsic followers, and groups achieve high levels of coordination by randomly converging on one individual's preferred option, whereas when conflict is strong, most individuals are intrinsic leaders, and coordination breaks down because members of a group are rarely willing to follow another.

The effect of boldness on decision-making in barnacle geese is group-size-dependent

In group-living species, decisions made by individuals may result in collective behaviours. A central question in understanding collective behaviours is how individual variation in phenotype affects collective behaviours. However, how the personality of individuals affects collective decisions in groups remains poorly understood. Here, we investigated the role of boldness on the decision-making process in different-sized groups of barnacle geese. Naive barnacle geese, differing in boldness score, were introduced in a labyrinth in groups with either one or three informed demonstrators. The demonstrators possessed information about the route through the labyrinth. In pairs, the probability of choosing a route prior to the informed demonstrator increased with increasing boldness score: bolder individuals decided more often for themselves where to go compared with shyer individuals, whereas shyer individuals waited more often for the demonstrators to decide and followed this information. In groups of four individuals, however, there was no effect of boldness on decision-making, suggesting that individual differences were less important with increasing group size. Our experimental results show that personality is important in collective decisions in pairs of barnacle geese, and suggest that bolder individuals have a greater influence over the outcome of decisions in groups.

Decision-making processes: the case of collective movements

Besides focusing on the adaptive significance of collective movements, it is crucial to study the mechanisms and dynamics of decision-making processes at the individual level underlying the higher-scale collective movements. It is now commonly admitted that collective decisions emerge from interactions between individuals, but how individual decisions are taken, i.e. how far they are modulated by the behaviour of other group members, is an under-investigated question. Classically, collective movements are viewed as the outcome of one individual's initiation (the leader) for departure, by which all or some of the other group members abide. Individuals assuming leadership have often been considered to hold a specific social status. This hierarchical or centralized control model has been challenged by recent theoretical and experimental findings, suggesting that leadership can be more distributed. Moreover, self-organized processes can account for collective movements in many different species, even in those that are characterized by high cognitive complexity. In this review, we point out that decision-making for moving collectively can be reached by a combination of different rules, i.e. individualized (based on inter-individual differences in physiology, energetic state, social status, etc.) and self-organized (based on simple response) ones for any species, context and group size.

Deciding group movements: where and when to go

A group of animals can only move cohesively, if group members "somehow" reach a consensus about the timing (e.g., start) and the spatial direction/destination of the collective movement. Timing and spatial decisions usually differ with respect to the continuity of their cost/benefit distribution in such a way that, in principle, compromises are much more feasible in timing decision (e.g., median preferred time) than they are in spatial decisions. The consequence is that consensus costs connected to collective timing decisions are usually less skewed amongst group members than are consensus costs connected to spatial decisions. This, in turn, influences the evolution of decision sharing: sharing in timing decisions is most likely to evolve when conflicts are high relative to group cohesion benefits, while sharing in spatial decisions is most likely to evolve in the opposite situation. We discuss the implications of these differences for the study of collective movement decisions.

Collective movements, initiation and stops: diversity of situations and law of parsimony

The environment of animals is often heterogeneous, containing zones that may be dedicated specifically to resting, drinking or feeding. These functional zones may spread over a more or a less extensive area. Thus, mobile animals may have to move from one patch to another when resources are locally depleted or when they need to change activity. The mechanisms involved in collective movement appear simple at first glance, but a brief reflection shows the real difficulty of the problem in terms of the numerous environmental, physical, physiological and social parameters involved. This review is mainly concerned with collective movements, which are characterised by a directional and temporal coordination, where individuals mutually influence each other, meaning this coordination mainly depends on social interactions (Huth and Wissel, 1992; Warburton and Lazarus, 1991; Couzin and Krause, 2003; Couzin et al., 2002). In literature, two types of movement are discussed: large-scale movement and small-scale movement. First, we define these types of movement and then discuss the behavioural mechanisms involved. Secondly, we show that short and long movement but also moving and stopping may result from the outcome of parameters modulation underpinning collective decision-making.

Group decision-making in fission-fusion societies

The prevalent view of group splitting during group decisions is that a beneficial consensus has not been reached because time constraints, different individual information, or inter-individual conflicts lead to fission instead of a compromise. However, societies with high fission-fusion dynamics may allow their members to avoid consensus decisions that are not in their favour without foregoing grouping benefits that arise from collective behaviour. Moreover, by forming temporary subgroups that represent individual preferences better than the group as a whole fission-fusion societies could avoid a permanent break up even in situations where conflicts among their members are to strong to reach a consensus.

Do ants make direct comparisons?

Many individual decisions are informed by direct comparison of the alternatives. In collective decisions, however, only certain group members may have the opportunity to compare options. Emigrating ant colonies (Temnothorax albipennis) show sophisticated nest-site choice, selecting superior sites even when they are nine times further away than the alternative. How do they do this? We used radio-frequency identification-tagged ants to monitor individual behaviour. Here we show for the first time that switching between nests during the decision process can influence nest choice without requiring direct comparison of nests. Ants finding the poor nest were likely to switch and find the good nest, whereas ants finding the good nest were more likely to stay committed to that nest. When ants switched quickly between the two nests, colonies chose the good nest. Switching by ants that had the opportunity to compare nests had little effect on nest choice. We suggest a new mechanism of collective nest choice: individuals respond to nest quality by the decision either to commit or to seek alternatives. Previously proposed mechanisms, recruitment latency and nest comparison, can be explained as side effects of this simple rule. Colony-level comparison and choice can emerge, without direct comparison by individuals.

Quorum responses and consensus decision making

Animal groups are said to make consensus decisions when group members come to agree on the same option. Consensus decisions are taxonomically widespread and potentially offer three key benefits: maintenance of group cohesion, enhancement of decision accuracy compared with lone individuals and improvement in decision speed. In the absence of centralized control, arriving at a consensus depends on local interactions in which each individual's likelihood of choosing an option increases with the number of others already committed to that option. The resulting positive feedback can effectively direct most or all group members to the best available choice. In this paper, we examine the functional form of the individual response to others' behaviour that lies at the heart of this process. We review recent theoretical and empirical work on consensus decisions, and we develop a simple mathematical model to show the central importance to speedy and accurate decisions of quorum responses, in which an animal's probability of exhibiting a behaviour is a sharply nonlinear function of the number of other individuals already performing this behaviour. We argue that systems relying on such quorum rules can achieve cohesive choice of the best option while also permitting adaptive tuning of the trade-off between decision speed and accuracy.

Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans

This paper reviews the literature on leadership in vertebrate groups, including recent work on human groups, before presenting the results of three new experiments looking at leadership and decision making in small and large human groups. In experiment 1, we find that both group size and the presence of uninformed individuals can affect the speed with which small human groups (eight people) decide between two opposing directional preferences and the likelihood of the group splitting. In experiment 2, we show that the spatial positioning of informed individuals within small human groups (10 people) can affect the speed and accuracy of group motion. We find that having a mixture of leaders positioned in the centre and on the edge of a group increases the speed and accuracy with which the group reaches their target. In experiment 3, we use large human crowds (100 and 200 people) to demonstrate that the trends observed from earlier work using small human groups can be applied to larger crowds. We find that only a small minority of informed individuals is needed to guide a large uninformed group. These studies build upon important theoretical and empirical work on leadership and decision making in animal groups.

Reciprocity, culture and human cooperation: previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment

Understanding the proximate and ultimate sources of human cooperation is a fundamental issue in all behavioural sciences. In this paper, we review the experimental evidence on how people solve cooperation problems. Existing studies show without doubt that direct and indirect reciprocity are important determinants of successful cooperation. We also discuss the insights from a large literature on the role of peer punishment in sustaining cooperation. The experiments demonstrate that many people are 'strong reciprocators' who are willing to cooperate and punish others even if there are no gains from future cooperation or any other reputational gains. We document this in new one-shot experiments, which we conducted in four cities in Russia and Switzerland. Our cross-cultural approach allows us furthermore to investigate how the cultural background influences strong reciprocity. Our results show that culture has a strong influence on positive and in especially strong negative reciprocity. In particular, we find large cross-cultural differences in 'antisocial punishment' of pro-social cooperators. Further cross-cultural research and experiments involving different socio-demographic groups document that the antisocial punishment is much more widespread than previously assumed. Understanding antisocial punishment is an important task for future research because antisocial punishment is a strong inhibitor of cooperation.

Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey

Humans routinely make many decisions collectively, whether they choose a restaurant with friends, elect political leaders or decide actions to tackle international problems, such as climate change, that affect the future of the whole planet. We might be less aware of it, but group decisions are just as important to social animals as they are for us. Animal groups have to collectively decide about communal movements, activities, nesting sites and enterprises, such as cooperative breeding or hunting, that crucially affect their survival and reproduction. While human group decisions have been studied for millennia, the study of animal group decisions is relatively young, but is now expanding rapidly. It emerges that group decisions in animals pose many similar questions to those in humans. The purpose of the present issue is to integrate and combine approaches in the social and natural sciences in an area in which theoretical challenges and research questions are often similar, and to introduce each discipline to the other's key ideas, findings and successful methods. In order to make such an introduction as effective as possible, here, we briefly review conceptual similarities and differences between the sciences, and provide a guide to the present issue.