group cognition 1 - group decision making and rationality Flashcards
the madness of crowds
Charles Mackay
example:
stock market activity and economic bubbles→ investors buy up cheap shares and this snowballs increasing the price of the shares until they no longer reflect the value of the company→ the bubble bursts and the shares are worth very little
the wisdom of crowds
individuals had to guess the weight of an ox
the mean of all guesses (made individually) was very close to the actual weight
therefore the guess of the group was better than that of individuals
real world example of the madness of crowds
run on deposit withdrawals in 2007
led to collapse of a UK bank - Northern Rock
paradigm to test small group cognition/decision making
3-6 people = small group
do short tasks - with definitive answer
with common aims
e.g. have to figure out a question which is quite confusingly worded - example is who is married
results:
individuals more likely than groups to state that they cannot tell –> intuition
after few mins discussion, more people come to the right answer than when individually
Wason’s selection task
used in group cognition studies
four cards with a letter on one side and a number on the other
told a rule and have to flip over on cards to decide whether the statement is true or false
e.g. all cards with a vowel on one side have an even number on the other side
cards = E X 1 6
solution = flip E and 1, X and 6 would tell you nothing
confirmation bias
confirmation bias = preference for seeking info to confirm existing beliefs rather than contradict it
active search for info, not whether you believe info when you encounter it
wason’s selection task in groups
used as a small group decision task
80% of groups arrive at the correct answer
70-80% individuals arrive at wrong answer
few mins discussion can change wrong answer to correct one
therefore researchers can use this to look at the processing of reasoning in groups
Wason’s selection task - controls (what helps (2) or doesn’t help (3) participants to reach correct answer)
doesn’t help
- motivation / rewards
- changing the wording
- university education
does help
- making the task less abstract
- working in a group, not alone (maybe…)
Wason’s selection task - social rule version
4 cards representing 4 people in a pub
each with a drink on one side (alcoholic or non) and an age on the other
rule = all people with an alcoholic drink must be older than 18
cards = beer // cola // 17 // 25
task = which people do you need to inspect to see if rule is being broken
solution = turn over beer and 17
results = people are better at this than the normal one
can group cognition improve individual reasoning
yes
but not always - need to think about when and why
process loss and gain
process loss = group decisions are worse than individual = madness of crowds
process gain = group decisions are better than individual = wisdom of crowds
what level do groups perform at relative to their members
at the accuracy of the second best member of the group
group cognition tends to avoid individual worst answer but also the best answer
4 factors to define to determine if groups are better than individuals
- task time
- standards of comparison
- coordination methods
- individual differences
it is difficult to compare groups
task types for measuring group cognition (2 measures)
intellective = definitive answer
vs
judgement = estimations/opinions
well-defined
vs
ill-defined
(closely related to intellective vs judgement)
3 things task could depend on (types) for measuring group cognition
does the task:
- require insight
- require background knowledge
- provoke strong intuitions or emotions (biases)
task type effect on individuals vs groups
intellective (definitive answer) = groups perform as well as best individual, when given time
judgement (estimations/opinions) = best members outperform groups
unclear answer = groups tend to perform at level of the average members
standards of comparison
look on a continuum from worst to best individual in a group
there is a synergy between the group - balancing out the members
what are coordination methods
how the group function (level of discussion, anonymity, revision etc.)
can be manipulated experimentally within groups so they have to make decisions in certain ways
coordination methods in groups (5)
- no discussion = averaging individual’s answers
- iterative, anonymous, answers, no discussion = ‘Delphi’ method revises answers to reach consensus
- discussion group choses the best individual to answer = “dictator method”
- discussion = come to group agreement “consensus method” ,
- discussion with revision = given collective mean, discuss and revise “dialectic methods”
measure which of these group methods was best at improving individual estimates
coordination methods - delphi method
revise answers to reach consensus
when the task is:
iterative
anonymous
no discussion
coordination methods - dictator method
discussion group chooses best individual to answer
coordination methods - consensus method
discussion which comes to a group decision
coordination methods - dialectic methods
discussion WITH revision
then given a collective mean which they discuss and revise
coordination methods - no discussion
individuals answer, their answers are averaged to provide a group answer
impact of different coordination methods - which are best
Sniezek (1989)
dictator = greatest improvement in error compared to individual estimates
then delphi
then dialectic
then consensus
however, none outperformed best individual members
–> dictator group = best performers often adjusted answer towards the collective mean
individual differences which could effect a group functioning (3)
- sources of info - access to cue, knowledge to answer question
- ability - e.g. better memory
- capacities - e.g. ability/willingness to coordinate
achieving group consensus - how does this happen (2 methods)
through revision and weighting
revision = within an individual within a group
weighting = combination of multiple judgements = within the group
e.g. more weight given to those with better prior knowledge
lens model of group decision making and consensus
criteria –> cues –> member judgements –> member judgements (revised) –> group judgements
C –> C1/2/3… –> O1/2/3… –> O1R/2R/3R… –> G
C = environment to be judged - element/criteria
O = judgements and revised judgements
C1 etc= cues related to criteria (some cues may only be known by a 1 or 2 members so sharing this knowledge can increase group accuracy) - can depend on the weighting given to this cue
G= Group judgement
DIAGRAM ON SLIDE 32
what does the lens model show - + issue with it
framework to help us think systematically about the different factors which might affect group cognition
- how we achieve our goals
- accuracy of group decision making relies on accuracy of individual judgements
- if group judgements are highly related to the criteria in the environment = accurate decision
- influenced by systematic bias or persuasive individuals (unequal weighting)
- weighting towards individuals and information can affect accuracy of the group judgement
why is lens model hard to measure
limited access to the internal thought processes in discussions
