Literature DB >> 33755712

Pre-screening workers to overcome bias amplification in online labour markets.

Ans Vercammen1, Alexandru Marcoci2, Mark Burgman1.   

Abstract

Groups have access to more diverse information and typically outperform individuals on problem solving tasks. Crowdsolving utilises this principle to generate novel and/or superior solutions to intellective tasks by pooling the inputs from a distributed online crowd. However, it is unclear whether this particular instance of "wisdom of the crowd" can overcome the influence of potent cognitive biases that habitually lead individuals to commit reasoning errors. We empirically test the prevalence of cognitive bias on a popular crowdsourcing platform, examining susceptibility to bias of online panels at the individual and aggregate levels. We then investigate the use of the Cognitive Reflection Test, notable for its predictive validity for both susceptibility to cognitive biases in test settings and real-life reasoning, as a screening tool to improve collective performance. We find that systematic biases in crowdsourced answers are not as prevalent as anticipated, but when they occur, biases are amplified with increasing group size, as predicted by the Condorcet Jury Theorem. The results further suggest that pre-screening individuals with the Cognitive Reflection Test can substantially enhance collective judgement and improve crowdsolving performance.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33755712      PMCID: PMC7987151          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  16 in total

1.  On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning.

Authors:  K C Klauer; J Musch; B Naumer
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  The source of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning.

Authors:  S E Newstead; P Pollard; J S Evans; J L Allen
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1992-12

3.  More heads choose better than one: Group decision making can eliminate probability matching.

Authors:  Christin Schulze; Ben R Newell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

4.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks.

Authors:  Maggie E Toplak; Richard F West; Keith E Stanovich
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-10

6.  Logic and human reasoning: an assessment of the deduction paradigm.

Authors:  Jonathan St B T Evans
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 17.737

7.  Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research.

Authors:  Frederik Aust; Birk Diedenhofen; Sebastian Ullrich; Jochen Musch
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2013-06

8.  Development of abbreviated nine-item forms of the Raven's standard progressive matrices test.

Authors:  Warren B Bilker; John A Hansen; Colleen M Brensinger; Jan Richard; Raquel E Gur; Ruben C Gur
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2012-05-17

9.  The Potential of Collective Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: Pooling Medical Students' Independent Decisions Improves Diagnostic Performance.

Authors:  Juliane E Kämmer; Wolf E Hautz; Stefan M Herzog; Olga Kunina-Habenicht; Ralf H J M Kurvers
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Characterizing belief bias in syllogistic reasoning: A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of ROC data.

Authors:  Dries Trippas; David Kellen; Henrik Singmann; Gordon Pennycook; Derek J Koehler; Jonathan A Fugelsang; Chad Dubé
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.