Collective dynamics emerge from individual-level decisions, yet we still poorly understand the link between individual-level decision-making processes and collective outcomes in realistic physical systems. Using collective foraging to study the key trade-off between personal and social information use, we present a mechanistic, spatially-explicit agent-based model that combines individual-level evidence accumulation of personal and (visual) social cues with particle-based movement. Under idealized conditions without physical constraints, our mechanistic framework reproduces findings from established probabilistic models, but explains how individual-level decision processes generate collective outcomes in a bottom-up way. In clustered environments, groups performed best if agents reacted strongly to social information, while in uniform environments, individualistic search was most beneficial. Incorporating different real-world physical and perceptual constraints profoundly shaped collective performance, and could even buffer maladaptive herding by facilitating self-organized exploration. Our study uncovers the mechanisms linking individual cognition to collective outcomes in human and animal foraging and paves the way for decentralized robotic applications.

Individuals continuously have to balance the error costs of alternative decisions. A wealth of research has studied how single individuals navigate this, showing that individuals develop response biases to avoid the more costly error. We, however, know little about the dynamics in groups facing asymmetrical error costs and when social influence amplifies either safe or risky behavior. Here, we investigate this by modeling the decision process and information flow with a drift-diffusion model extended to the social domain. In the model individuals first gather independent personal information; they then enter a social phase in which they can either decide early based on personal information, or wait for additional social information. We combined the model with an evolutionary algorithm to derive adaptive behavior. We find that under asymmetric costs, individuals in large cooperative groups do not develop response biases because such biases amplify at the collective level, triggering false information cascades. Selfish individuals, however, undermine the group's performance for their own benefit by developing higher response biases and waiting for more information. Our results have implications for our understanding of the social dynamics in groups facing asymmetrical errors costs, such as animal groups evading predation or police officers holding a suspect at gunpoint.

Cognitive biases are widespread in humans and animals alike, and can sometimes be reinforced by social interactions. One prime bias in judgment and decision-making is the human tendency to underestimate large quantities. Previous research on social influence in estimation tasks has generally focused on the impact of single estimates on individual and collective accuracy, showing that randomly sharing estimates does not reduce the underestimation bias. Here, we test a method of social information sharing that exploits the known relationship between the true value and the level of underestimation, and study if it can counteract the underestimation bias. We performed estimation experiments in which participants had to estimate a series of quantities twice, before and after receiving estimates from one or several group members. Our purpose was threefold: to study (i) whether restructuring the sharing of social information can reduce the underestimation bias, (ii) how the number of estimates received affects the sensitivity to social influence and estimation accuracy, and (iii) the mechanisms underlying the integration of multiple estimates. Our restructuring of social interactions successfully countered the underestimation bias. Moreover, we find that sharing more than one estimate also reduces the underestimation bias. Underlying our results are a human tendency to herd, to trust larger estimates than one's own more than smaller estimates, and to follow disparate social information less. Using a computational modeling approach, we demonstrate that these effects are indeed key to explain the experimental results. Overall, our results show that existing knowledge on biases can be used to dampen their negative effects and boost judgment accuracy, paving the way for combating other cognitive biases threatening collective systems.