When Does Diversity Trump Ability (and Vice Versa) in Group Decision Making? A Simulation Study

It is often unclear which factor plays a more critical role in determining a group's performance: the diversity among members of the group or their individual abilities. In this study, we addressed this “diversity vs. ability” issue in a decision-making task. We conducted three simulation studies in which we manipulated agents' individual ability (or accuracy, in the context of our investigation) and group diversity by varying (1) the heuristics agents used to search task-relevant information (i.e., cues); (2) the size of their groups; (3) how much they had learned about a good cue search order; and (4) the magnitude of errors in the information they searched. In each study, we found that a manipulation reducing agents' individual accuracy simultaneously increased their group's diversity, leading to a conflict between the two. These conflicts enabled us to identify certain conditions under which diversity trumps individual accuracy, and vice versa. Specifically, we found that individual accuracy is more important in task environments in which cues differ greatly in the quality of their information, and diversity matters more when such differences are relatively small. Changing the size of a group and the amount of learning by an agent had a limited impact on this general effect of task environment. Furthermore, we found that a group achieves its highest accuracy when there is an intermediate amount of errors in the cue information, regardless of the environment and the heuristic used, an effect that we believe has not been previously reported and warrants further investigation.

[1]  W. Tuckwell,et al.  The Honey Bee , 1891, Nature.

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

[3]  Joan S. Stark,et al.  Is more information better , 1976 .

[4]  G. Owen,et al.  Thirteen theorems in search of the truth , 1983 .

[5]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. , 1986 .

[7]  James Shanteau,et al.  Expert Judgment: Is More Information Better? , 1987 .

[8]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  You have printed the following article : A Theory of Fads , Fashion , Custom , and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades , 2007 .

[9]  L. Dugatkin Interface between culturally based preferences and genetic preferences: female mate choice in Poecilia reticulata. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[11]  R. Hastie,et al.  Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments , 1997 .

[12]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[13]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Hindsight bias: a by-product of knowledge updating? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  R D Sorkin,et al.  Signal-detection analysis of group decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[15]  R. Currie,et al.  Discrimination and preferences for pollen-based cues by foraging honeybees, Apis mellifera L. , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group performance and decision making. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[17]  Tim Rakow,et al.  Simple heuristics from the Adaptive Toolbox: Can we perform the requisite learning? , 2004 .

[18]  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 .

[19]  Lu Hong,et al.  Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  K. Dieussaert,et al.  Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society , 2004 .

[22]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Simple ways to construct search orders , 2005 .

[23]  J. Hutchinson,et al.  Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet , 2005, Behavioural Processes.

[24]  Reid Hastie,et al.  The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. , 2005, Psychological review.

[25]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  How to learn good cue orders : When social learning benefits simple heuristics , 2006 .

[26]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  The Ecological Rationality of Simple Group Heuristics: Effects of Group Member Strategies on Decision Accuracy , 2006 .

[27]  Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos,et al.  Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: Some results on their relative accuracy , 2006 .

[28]  R Sun,et al.  Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2006 .

[29]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Deep Diversity and Strong Synergy , 2007 .

[30]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future , 2008 .

[31]  C. List,et al.  Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  Peter Pirolli,et al.  Information Foraging , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[33]  András Liker,et al.  Larger groups are more successful in innovative problem solving in house sparrows , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Catriona M. E. Ryan,et al.  A comparative analysis of the categorization of multidimensional stimuli: I. Unidimensional classification does not necessarily imply analytic processing; evidence from pigeons (Columba livia), squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and humans (Homo sapiens). , 2009, Journal of comparative psychology.

[35]  Andrew J. King,et al.  Swarm Intelligence in Animal Groups: When Can a Collective Out-Perform an Expert? , 2010, PloS one.

[36]  Volker Sommer,et al.  Performance of human groups in social foraging: the role of communication in consensus decision making , 2010, Biology Letters.

[37]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  The robust beauty of ordinary information. , 2010, Psychological review.

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

[39]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Group Living Enhances Individual Resources Discrimination: The Use of Public Information by Cockroaches to Assess Shelter Quality , 2011, PloS one.

[40]  I. Giardina Collective Animal Behavior David J.T. Sumpter Collective Animal Behavior , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[41]  Richard James,et al.  Swarm intelligence in humans: diversity can trump ability , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

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