Improving Collective Estimations Using Resistance to Social Influence

Groups can make precise collective estimations in cases like the weight of an object or the number of items in a volume. However, in others tasks, for example those requiring memory or mental calculation, subjects often give estimations with large deviations from factual values. Allowing members of the group to communicate their estimations has the additional perverse effect of shifting individual estimations even closer to the biased collective estimation. Here we show that this negative effect of social interactions can be turned into a method to improve collective estimations. We first obtained a statistical model of how humans change their estimation when receiving the estimates made by other individuals. We confirmed using existing experimental data its prediction that individuals use the weighted geometric mean of private and social estimations. We then used this result and the fact that each individual uses a different value of the social weight to devise a method that extracts the subgroups resisting social influence. We found that these subgroups of individuals resisting social influence can make very large improvements in group estimations. This is in contrast to methods using the confidence that each individual declares, for which we find no improvement in group estimations. Also, our proposed method does not need to use historical data to weight individuals by performance. These results show the benefits of using the individual characteristics of the members in a group to better extract collective wisdom.

[1]  Stella F. Lourenco,et al.  Spatial attention and the mental number line: Evidence for characteristic biases and compression , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  Asher Koriat,et al.  When Are Two Heads Better than One and Why? , 2012, Science.

[3]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  The Accuracy of Small-Group Estimation and the Wisdom of Crowds , 2010 .

[4]  T. B. Parkin,et al.  Statistical evaluation of median estimators for lognormally distributed variables , 1993 .

[5]  Geoffrey J. McLachlan,et al.  Finite Mixture Models , 2019, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[6]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  Rebecca A. Henry,et al.  Accuracy and confidence in group judgment , 1989 .

[8]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Social influence and opinions , 1990 .

[9]  Hansjörg Neth,et al.  Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  M. Degroot Reaching a Consensus , 1974 .

[11]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  Inferring Expertise in Knowledge and Prediction Ranking Tasks , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[12]  A. Koriat,et al.  When Are Two Heads Better than One and Why? , 2012, Science.

[13]  Javier R. Movellan,et al.  Whose Vote Should Count More: Optimal Integration of Labels from Labelers of Unknown Expertise , 2009, NIPS.

[14]  Alfonso Pérez-Escudero,et al.  Collective Animal Behavior from Bayesian Estimation and Probability Matching , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[15]  P. Deb Finite Mixture Models , 2008 .

[16]  A. Pérez-Escudero,et al.  A common rule for decision making in animal collectives across species , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  W. Heath The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , 2008 .

[18]  Majid Nili Ahmadabadi,et al.  Learning to Make Collective Decisions: The Impact of Confidence Escalation , 2013, PloS one.

[19]  P. J. Green,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

[20]  F. Galton Vox Populi , 1907, Nature.

[21]  P. Latham,et al.  References and Notes Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S11 References Movie S1 Optimally Interacting Minds R�ports , 2022 .

[22]  Stefan Krause,et al.  Swarm intelligence in animals and humans. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  Claudio J. Tessone,et al.  Quantifying the effects of social influence , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[24]  D. Helbing,et al.  How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  C. Wagner,et al.  EVALUATING THE WISDOM OF CROWDS , 2010 .

[26]  J. Kruschke Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[27]  Andrew J. King,et al.  Is the true ‘wisdom of the crowd’ to copy successful individuals? , 2012, Biology Letters.

[28]  J. Kleinberg,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets , 2010 .

[29]  W. Stahel,et al.  Log-normal Distributions across the Sciences: Keys and Clues , 2001 .

[30]  Maria Isabel Ribeiro,et al.  Gaussian Probability Density Functions: Properties and Error Characterization , 2004 .

[31]  F. Petzschner,et al.  Iterative Bayesian Estimation as an Explanation for Range and Regression Effects: A Study on Human Path Integration , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.