Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-h2zp4 Total loading time: 0.161 Render date: 2021-09-18T11:41:06.201Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

MODELLING INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE IN GROUP JUDGEMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2015

Dominik Klein
Affiliation:
Tilburg Center for Logic, General Ethics and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS), Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands. Email: d.klein@uvt.nl.
Jan Sprenger
Affiliation:
Tilburg Center for Logic, General Ethics and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS), Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands. Email: j.sprenger@uvt.nl. URL: http://www.laeuferpaar.de.

Abstract:

Group judgements are often – implicitly or explicitly – influenced by their members’ individual expertise. However, given that expertise is seldom recognized fully and that some distortions may occur (bias, correlation, etc.), it is not clear that differential weighting is an epistemically advantageous strategy with respect to straight averaging. Our paper characterizes a wide set of conditions under which differential weighting outperforms straight averaging and embeds the results into the multidisciplinary group decision-making literature.

Type
Symposium on Individual and Social Deliberation
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, J. S. 2001. Combining forecasts. In Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook For Researchers and Practitioners, ed. Armstrong, J. Scott. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, J. M. and Granger, C. W. J.. 1969. The combination of forecasts. Operational Research Quarterly 20: 451468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, M. R. and Bonner, B. L.. 2004. The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93: 89101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, B. L. 2000. The effects of extroversion on influence in ambiguous group tasks. Small Group Research 31: 225244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, B. L. 2004. Expertise in Group Problem Solving: Recognition, Social Combination, and Performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 8: 277290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R. and Dalal, R. S.. 2002. The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88: 719736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemen, R. T. 1989. Combining forecasts: a review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Forecasting 5: 559583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, R. M. 1991. Experts in Uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, J. H. 1973. Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review 80: 97125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGroot, M. 1974. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69: 118121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, H. J., Hogarth, R. M. and Klempner, E.. 1977. Quality of Group Judgment. Psychological Bulletin 84: 158172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. 2007. Reflection and Disagreement. Noûs 41: 478502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Goldstein, D. G.. 1996. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103: 650669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartmann, S. and Sprenger, J.. 2010. The weight of competence under a realistic loss function. The Logic Journal of the IGPL 18: 346352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, R. A. 1995. Improving group judgment accuracy: information sharing and determining the best member. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62: 190197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, G. W. 1982. Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin 91: 517539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinsz, V. B. 1999. Group decision making with responses of a quantitative nature: the theory of social decision schemes for quantities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 80: 2849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogarth, R. M. 1978. A note on aggregating opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21: 4046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrick, R. P., Burson, K. A. and Soll, J. B.. 2007. Social comparison and overconfidence: when thinking you’re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102: 7694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, P. R. and Ellis, A. L.. 1986. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22: 177189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Wagner, C.. 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society: A Philosophical and Mathematical Study, Vol. 21. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, R., Trotman, K. T. and Zimmer, I.. 1987. Member variation, recognition of expertise and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 8187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, D. V. 1983. Reconciliation of probability distributions. Operations Research 31: 866880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W. and Frost, A. G.. 1995. An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problemsolving groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 877889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2012. The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review. Synthese 187: 179207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martini, C., Sprenger, J. and Colyvan, M.. 2013. Resolving disagreement through mutual respect. Erkenntnis 78: 881898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R., Cloutier, E. and Guay, J.-H.. 1993. New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process. International Political Science Review 14: 203213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soll, J. B. and Larrick, R. P.. 2009. Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 35: 780805.Google ScholarPubMed
Surowiecki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of the Crowds. Harpswell, ME: Anchor.Google Scholar
Thomas, E. J. and Fink, C. F.. 1961. Models of group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63: 5363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilf, H. S. 1985. Some examples of combinatorial averaging. American Mathematical Monthly 92: 250261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

MODELLING INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE IN GROUP JUDGEMENTS
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

MODELLING INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE IN GROUP JUDGEMENTS
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

MODELLING INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE IN GROUP JUDGEMENTS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *