Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. / Navajas, Joaquin; Niella, Tamara; Garbulsky, Gerry; Bahrami, Bahador; Sigman, Mariano.

In: Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 2, No. 2, 15.01.2018, p. 126-132.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Published

Standard

Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. / Navajas, Joaquin; Niella, Tamara; Garbulsky, Gerry; Bahrami, Bahador; Sigman, Mariano.

In: Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 2, No. 2, 15.01.2018, p. 126-132.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Navajas, J, Niella, T, Garbulsky, G, Bahrami, B & Sigman, M 2018, 'Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds', Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 126-132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4

APA

Navajas, J., Niella, T., Garbulsky, G., Bahrami, B., & Sigman, M. (2018). Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(2), 126-132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4

Vancouver

Navajas J, Niella T, Garbulsky G, Bahrami B, Sigman M. Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018 Jan 15;2(2):126-132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4

Author

Navajas, Joaquin ; Niella, Tamara ; Garbulsky, Gerry ; Bahrami, Bahador ; Sigman, Mariano. / Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. In: Nature Human Behaviour. 2018 ; Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 126-132.

BibTeX

@article{950341b5c7ef4c64a97057e37df388d1,
title = "Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds",
abstract = "The aggregation of many independent estimates can outperform the most accurate individual judgement. This centenarian finding, popularly known as the 'wisdom of crowds', has been applied to problems ranging from the diagnosis of cancer to financial forecasting. It is widely believed that social influence undermines collective wisdom by reducing the diversity of opinions within the crowd. Here, we show that if a large crowd is structured in small independent groups, deliberation and social influence within groups improve the crowd{\textquoteright}s collective accuracy. We asked a live crowd (N = 5,180) to respond to general-knowledge questions (for example, {"}What is the height of the Eiffel Tower?{"}). Participants first answered individually, then deliberated and made consensus decisions in groups of five, and finally provided revised individual estimates. We found that averaging consensus decisions was substantially more accurate than aggregating the initial independent opinions. Remarkably, combining as few as four consensus choices outperformed the wisdom of thousands of individuals.",
author = "Joaquin Navajas and Tamara Niella and Gerry Garbulsky and Bahador Bahrami and Mariano Sigman",
year = "2018",
month = jan,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "126--132",
journal = "Nature Human Behaviour",
issn = "2397-3374",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds

AU - Navajas, Joaquin

AU - Niella, Tamara

AU - Garbulsky, Gerry

AU - Bahrami, Bahador

AU - Sigman, Mariano

PY - 2018/1/15

Y1 - 2018/1/15

N2 - The aggregation of many independent estimates can outperform the most accurate individual judgement. This centenarian finding, popularly known as the 'wisdom of crowds', has been applied to problems ranging from the diagnosis of cancer to financial forecasting. It is widely believed that social influence undermines collective wisdom by reducing the diversity of opinions within the crowd. Here, we show that if a large crowd is structured in small independent groups, deliberation and social influence within groups improve the crowd’s collective accuracy. We asked a live crowd (N = 5,180) to respond to general-knowledge questions (for example, "What is the height of the Eiffel Tower?"). Participants first answered individually, then deliberated and made consensus decisions in groups of five, and finally provided revised individual estimates. We found that averaging consensus decisions was substantially more accurate than aggregating the initial independent opinions. Remarkably, combining as few as four consensus choices outperformed the wisdom of thousands of individuals.

AB - The aggregation of many independent estimates can outperform the most accurate individual judgement. This centenarian finding, popularly known as the 'wisdom of crowds', has been applied to problems ranging from the diagnosis of cancer to financial forecasting. It is widely believed that social influence undermines collective wisdom by reducing the diversity of opinions within the crowd. Here, we show that if a large crowd is structured in small independent groups, deliberation and social influence within groups improve the crowd’s collective accuracy. We asked a live crowd (N = 5,180) to respond to general-knowledge questions (for example, "What is the height of the Eiffel Tower?"). Participants first answered individually, then deliberated and made consensus decisions in groups of five, and finally provided revised individual estimates. We found that averaging consensus decisions was substantially more accurate than aggregating the initial independent opinions. Remarkably, combining as few as four consensus choices outperformed the wisdom of thousands of individuals.

U2 - 10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4

DO - 10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 126

EP - 132

JO - Nature Human Behaviour

JF - Nature Human Behaviour

SN - 2397-3374

IS - 2

ER -