Abstract
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.