Promoting Erroneous Divergent Opinions Increases the Wisdom of Crowds.

IF 4.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-12 DOI:10.1177/09567976241252138
Federico Barrera-Lemarchand, Pablo Balenzuela, Bahador Bahrami, Ophelia Deroy, Joaquin Navajas
{"title":"Promoting Erroneous Divergent Opinions Increases the Wisdom of Crowds.","authors":"Federico Barrera-Lemarchand, Pablo Balenzuela, Bahador Bahrami, Ophelia Deroy, Joaquin Navajas","doi":"10.1177/09567976241252138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aggregation of many lay judgments generates surprisingly accurate estimates. This phenomenon, called the \"wisdom of crowds,\" has been demonstrated in domains such as medical decision-making and financial forecasting. Previous research identified two factors driving this effect: the accuracy of individual assessments and the diversity of opinions. Most available strategies to enhance the wisdom of crowds have focused on improving individual accuracy while neglecting the potential of increasing opinion diversity. Here, we study a complementary approach to reduce collective error by promoting erroneous divergent opinions. This strategy proposes to anchor half of the crowd to a small value and the other half to a large value before eliciting and averaging all estimates. Consistent with our mathematical modeling, four experiments (<i>N</i> = 1,362 adults) demonstrated that this method is effective for estimation and forecasting tasks. Beyond the practical implications, these findings offer new theoretical insights into the epistemic value of collective decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":20745,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"872-886"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241252138","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aggregation of many lay judgments generates surprisingly accurate estimates. This phenomenon, called the "wisdom of crowds," has been demonstrated in domains such as medical decision-making and financial forecasting. Previous research identified two factors driving this effect: the accuracy of individual assessments and the diversity of opinions. Most available strategies to enhance the wisdom of crowds have focused on improving individual accuracy while neglecting the potential of increasing opinion diversity. Here, we study a complementary approach to reduce collective error by promoting erroneous divergent opinions. This strategy proposes to anchor half of the crowd to a small value and the other half to a large value before eliciting and averaging all estimates. Consistent with our mathematical modeling, four experiments (N = 1,362 adults) demonstrated that this method is effective for estimation and forecasting tasks. Beyond the practical implications, these findings offer new theoretical insights into the epistemic value of collective decision-making.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宣传错误的不同意见会增加群众的智慧。
将许多非专业人士的判断汇总在一起,会产生出人意料的精确估计。这种现象被称为 "群众的智慧",已在医疗决策和金融预测等领域得到证实。先前的研究发现了两个驱动这种效应的因素:个人评估的准确性和意见的多样性。现有的大多数增强群众智慧的策略都侧重于提高个人评估的准确性,而忽视了提高意见多样性的潜力。在此,我们研究一种互补方法,通过促进错误的不同意见来减少集体错误。这一策略建议在激发和平均所有估计值之前,将人群的一半锚定在一个小值上,另一半锚定在一个大值上。与我们的数学建模相一致,四项实验(N = 1,362 名成年人)表明,这种方法对估计和预测任务非常有效。除了实际意义之外,这些发现还为集体决策的认识价值提供了新的理论见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Science
Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Psychological Science, the flagship journal of The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society), is a leading publication in the field with a citation ranking/impact factor among the top ten worldwide. It publishes authoritative articles covering various domains of psychological science, including brain and behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology. In addition to full-length articles, the journal features summaries of new research developments and discussions on psychological issues in government and public affairs. "Psychological Science" is published twelve times annually.
期刊最新文献
Gaze Behavior Reveals Expectations of Potential Scene Changes. Why Do Children Think Words Are Mutually Exclusive? The Affect Misattribution Procedure Revisited: An Informational Account. Narrative Identity, Traits, and Trajectories of Depression and Well-Being: A 9-Year Longitudinal Study. People Place Larger Bets When Risky Choices Provide a Postbet Option to Cash Out.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1