How Individuals Weigh Their Previous Estimates to Make a New Estimate in the Presence or Absence of Social Influence

Individuals make decisions every day. How they come up with estimates to guide their decisions could be a result of a combination of different information sources such as individual beliefs and previous knowledge, random guesses, and social cues. This study aims to sort out individual estimate assessments over multiple times with the main focus on how individuals weigh their own beliefs vs. those of others in forming their future estimates. Using dynamics modeling, we build on data from an experiment conducted by Lorenz et al. [1] where 144 subjects made five estimates for six factual questions in an isolated manner (no interaction allowed between subjects). We model the dynamic mechanisms of changing estimates for two different scenarios: 1) when individuals are not exposed to any information and 2) when they are under social influence.

[1]  S. Bonaccio,et al.  Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences , 2006 .

[2]  James Surowiecki.  The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations Doubleday Books. , 2004 .

[3]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  George Wright,et al.  Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda , 2011 .

[6]  M. Lee,et al.  The wisdom of the crowd playing The Price Is Right , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Yaniv,et al.  Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[8]  Adrian K. Rantilla,et al.  Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions. , 2000, Acta psychologica.

[9]  A. Benjamin,et al.  Smaller is better (when sampling from the crowd within): Low memory-span individuals benefit more from multiple opportunities for estimation. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  The Benefit of Additional Opinions , 2004 .

[11]  Jan Lorenz,et al.  The wisdom of crowds in one mind: How individuals can simulate the knowledge of diverse societies to reach better decisions , 2011 .

[12]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Effects of judges' forecasting on their later combination of forecasts for the same outcomes , 2004 .

[13]  Albert E. Mannes.  Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[14]  Albert E. Mannes,et al.  Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved , 2011 .

[15]  D. Moore,et al.  Effects of Task Difficulty on Use of Advice , 2007 .

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

[17]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments , 2007 .

[19]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Receiving Other People's Advice: Influence and Benefit , 2004 .

[20]  J. Krueger.  Return of the ego--self-referent information as a filter for social prediction: comment on Karniol (2003). , 2003, Psychological review.

[21]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  A note on aggregating opinions , 1978 .

[22]  Stefan M. Herzog,et al.  The Wisdom of Many in One Mind , 2009, Psychological science.