群体判断:深思熟虑、统计手段和信息市场

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW New York University Law Review Pub Date : 2004-08-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.578301
C. Sunstein
{"title":"群体判断:深思熟虑、统计手段和信息市场","authors":"C. Sunstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.578301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How can groups elicit and aggregate the information held by their individual members? The most obvious answer involves deliberation. For two reasons, however, deliberating groups often fail to make good decisions. First, the statements and acts of some group members convey relevant information, and that information often leads other people not to disclose what they know. Second, social pressures, imposed by some group members, often lead other group members to silence themselves because of fear of disapproval and associated harms. The unfortunate results include the propagation of errors; hidden profiles; cascade effects; and group polarization. A variety of steps should be taken to ensure that deliberating groups obtain the information held by their members. Because of their ability to aggregate privately held information, information markets substantial advantages over group deliberation. These points bear on discussion of normative issues, in which deliberation might also fail to improve group thinking.","PeriodicalId":47736,"journal":{"name":"New York University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"174","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Group Judgments: Deliberation, Statistical Means, and Information Markets\",\"authors\":\"C. Sunstein\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.578301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How can groups elicit and aggregate the information held by their individual members? The most obvious answer involves deliberation. For two reasons, however, deliberating groups often fail to make good decisions. First, the statements and acts of some group members convey relevant information, and that information often leads other people not to disclose what they know. Second, social pressures, imposed by some group members, often lead other group members to silence themselves because of fear of disapproval and associated harms. The unfortunate results include the propagation of errors; hidden profiles; cascade effects; and group polarization. A variety of steps should be taken to ensure that deliberating groups obtain the information held by their members. Because of their ability to aggregate privately held information, information markets substantial advantages over group deliberation. These points bear on discussion of normative issues, in which deliberation might also fail to improve group thinking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New York University Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"174\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New York University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.578301\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New York University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.578301","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 174

摘要

群体如何引出并汇总其个体成员所持有的信息?最明显的答案是深思熟虑。然而,由于两个原因,审议小组往往不能做出好的决定。首先,一些群体成员的言论和行为传达了相关信息,而这些信息往往会导致其他人不透露他们所知道的信息。第二,一些群体成员施加的社会压力常常导致其他群体成员因为害怕不被认同和相关伤害而保持沉默。不幸的结果包括错误的传播;隐藏的资料;级联效应;还有群体极化。应采取各种步骤,确保审议小组获得其成员所掌握的资料。由于信息市场能够汇集私人持有的信息,因此它比群体审议具有实质性的优势。这些观点适用于规范性问题的讨论,在这些讨论中,深思熟虑也可能无法改善群体思维。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Group Judgments: Deliberation, Statistical Means, and Information Markets
How can groups elicit and aggregate the information held by their individual members? The most obvious answer involves deliberation. For two reasons, however, deliberating groups often fail to make good decisions. First, the statements and acts of some group members convey relevant information, and that information often leads other people not to disclose what they know. Second, social pressures, imposed by some group members, often lead other group members to silence themselves because of fear of disapproval and associated harms. The unfortunate results include the propagation of errors; hidden profiles; cascade effects; and group polarization. A variety of steps should be taken to ensure that deliberating groups obtain the information held by their members. Because of their ability to aggregate privately held information, information markets substantial advantages over group deliberation. These points bear on discussion of normative issues, in which deliberation might also fail to improve group thinking.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The New York University Law Review is a generalist journal publishing legal scholarship in all areas, including legal theory and policy, environmental law, legal history, international law, and more. Each year, our six issues contain cutting-edge legal scholarship written by professors, judges, and legal practitioners, as well as Notes written by members of the Law Review.
期刊最新文献
POLICING IN THE AGE OF THE GUN. Reinvigorating Commonality: Gender & Class Actions The Evidentiary Rules of Engagement in the War Against Domestic Violence A Dose of Reality for Medical Malpractice Reform Deference to Congressional Factfinding in Rights-Enforcing and Rights-Limiting Legislation
×
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