Literature DB >> 29769409

Individuals fail to reap the collective benefits of diversity because of over-reliance on personal information.

Alan Novaes Tump1, Max Wolf2, Jens Krause2,3, Ralf H J M Kurvers4,2.   

Abstract

Collective intelligence refers to the ability of groups to outperform individuals in solving cognitive tasks. Although numerous studies have demonstrated this effect, the mechanisms underlying collective intelligence remain poorly understood. Here, we investigate diversity in cue beliefs as a mechanism potentially promoting collective intelligence. In our experimental study, human groups observed a sequence of cartoon characters, and classified each character as a cooperator or defector based on informative and uninformative cues. Participants first made an individual decision. They then received social information consisting of their group members' decisions before making a second decision. Additionally, individuals reported their beliefs about the cues. Our results showed that individuals made better decisions after observing the decisions of others. Interestingly, individuals developed different cue beliefs, including many wrong ones, despite receiving identical information. Diversity in cue beliefs, however, did not predict collective improvement. Using simulations, we found that diverse collectives did provide better social information, but that individuals failed to reap those benefits because they relied too much on personal information. Our results highlight the potential of belief diversity for promoting collective intelligence, but suggest that this potential often remains unexploited because of over-reliance on personal information.
© 2018 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Condorcet; collective intelligence; correlated votes; majority rule; social information; wisdom of the crowd

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29769409      PMCID: PMC6000171          DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0155

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Interface        ISSN: 1742-5662            Impact factor:   4.118


  37 in total

1.  Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation.

Authors: 
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  2000-11

Review 2.  The use of multiple cues in mate choice.

Authors:  Ulrika Candolin
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2003-11

3.  Nine-spined sticklebacks exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict.

Authors:  Yfke van Bergen; Isabelle Coolen; Kevin N Laland
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-05-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move.

Authors:  Iain D Couzin; Jens Krause; Nigel R Franks; Simon A Levin
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-02-03       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Democracy in animal groups: a political science perspective.

Authors:  Christian List
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 6.  Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics.

Authors:  Janne-Tuomas Seppänen; Jukka T Forsman; Mikko Mönkkönen; Robert L Thomson
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.499

7.  Expert intuitions: how to model the decision strategies of airport customs officers?

Authors:  Thorsten Pachur; Gianmarco Marinello
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2013-06-19

8.  Group discussion improves lie detection.

Authors:  Nadav Klein; Nicholas Epley
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes.

Authors:  Albert B Kao; Iain D Couzin
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making.

Authors:  Andrew J King; Guy Cowlishaw
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2007-04-22       Impact factor: 3.703

View more
  7 in total

1.  Identification of acutely sick people: individual differences and social information use.

Authors:  Ralf H J M Kurvers; Max Wolf
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Crowd control: Reducing individual estimation bias by sharing biased social information.

Authors:  Bertrand Jayles; Clément Sire; Ralf H J M Kurvers
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 4.475

3.  Wise or mad crowds? The cognitive mechanisms underlying information cascades.

Authors:  Alan N Tump; Timothy J Pleskac; Ralf H J M Kurvers
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 14.136

Review 4.  Social information use and social information waste.

Authors:  Olivier Morin; Pierre Olivier Jacquet; Krist Vaesen; Alberto Acerbi
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 6.671

5.  Quorums enable optimal pooling of independent judgements in biological systems.

Authors:  James Ar Marshall; Ralf Hjm Kurvers; Jens Krause; Max Wolf
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  How to detect high-performing individuals and groups: Decision similarity predicts accuracy.

Authors:  R H J M Kurvers; S M Herzog; R Hertwig; J Krause; M Moussaid; G Argenziano; I Zalaudek; P A Carney; M Wolf
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 14.136

7.  Social information use in adolescents: The impact of adults, peers and household composition.

Authors:  Lucas Molleman; Patricia Kanngiesser; Wouter van den Bos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.