Literature DB >> 34843458

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

Bertrand Jayles1,2, Clément Sire3, Ralf H J M Kurvers1.   

Abstract

Cognitive biases are widespread in humans and animals alike, and can sometimes be reinforced by social interactions. One prime bias in judgment and decision-making is the human tendency to underestimate large quantities. Previous research on social influence in estimation tasks has generally focused on the impact of single estimates on individual and collective accuracy, showing that randomly sharing estimates does not reduce the underestimation bias. Here, we test a method of social information sharing that exploits the known relationship between the true value and the level of underestimation, and study if it can counteract the underestimation bias. We performed estimation experiments in which participants had to estimate a series of quantities twice, before and after receiving estimates from one or several group members. Our purpose was threefold: to study (i) whether restructuring the sharing of social information can reduce the underestimation bias, (ii) how the number of estimates received affects the sensitivity to social influence and estimation accuracy, and (iii) the mechanisms underlying the integration of multiple estimates. Our restructuring of social interactions successfully countered the underestimation bias. Moreover, we find that sharing more than one estimate also reduces the underestimation bias. Underlying our results are a human tendency to herd, to trust larger estimates than one's own more than smaller estimates, and to follow disparate social information less. Using a computational modeling approach, we demonstrate that these effects are indeed key to explain the experimental results. Overall, our results show that existing knowledge on biases can be used to dampen their negative effects and boost judgment accuracy, paving the way for combating other cognitive biases threatening collective systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34843458      PMCID: PMC8659305          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009590

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol        ISSN: 1553-734X            Impact factor:   4.475


  32 in total

Review 1.  Heuristic decision making.

Authors:  Gerd Gigerenzer; Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

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

3.  How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect.

Authors:  Jan Lorenz; Heiko Rauhut; Frank Schweitzer; Dirk Helbing
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-05-16       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments.

Authors:  Ralf H J M Kurvers; Stefan M Herzog; Ralph Hertwig; Jens Krause; Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Giuseppe Argenziano; Iris Zalaudek; Max Wolf
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Counteracting estimation bias and social influence to improve the wisdom of crowds.

Authors:  Albert B Kao; Andrew M Berdahl; Andrew T Hartnett; Matthew J Lutz; Joseph B Bak-Coleman; Christos C Ioannou; Xingli Giam; Iain D Couzin
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans.

Authors:  David G Rand; Samuel Arbesman; Nicholas A Christakis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205

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

Authors:  Alan Novaes Tump; Max Wolf; Jens Krause; Ralf H J M Kurvers
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.118

8.  Opinion Formation by Social Influence: From Experiments to Modeling.

Authors:  Andrés Chacoma; Damián H Zanette
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Quantifying the effects of social influence.

Authors:  Pavlin Mavrodiev; Claudio J Tessone; Frank Schweitzer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Adolescents show collective intelligence which can be driven by a geometric mean rule of thumb.

Authors:  Christos C Ioannou; Gabriel Madirolas; Faith S Brammer; Hannah A Rapley; Gonzalo G de Polavieja
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Social influence in adolescence as a double-edged sword.

Authors:  Lucas Molleman; Simon Ciranka; Wouter van den Bos
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 5.530

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.