Group Decision and Deliberation: A Distributed Detection Process

Sorkin, Robert D.; Luan, Shenghua; Itzkowitz, Jesse

doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch23

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding that simple majority voting obtains inferior accuracy benefits for visual search relative to averaging and weighted averaging could be relevant for real world search tasks, because human groups have a propensity to use a majority voting procedure to reach their joint decisions in various domains (27,28,31,33,34). For many real world perceptual tasks that involve a search component, it might be appropriate to abandon the easy majority voting procedure in favor of a more demanding averaging of confidences procedure to obtain higher collective integration benefits.…”

Section: Simple Majority Voting Obtains Inferior Wisdom Of Crowd Benementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although some groups seem to have leaders who make decisions alone on behalf of their groups (17,(21)(22)(23), it is difficult for individuals to outperform even simple aggregations of the entire group's individual judgments (4,7,9,10,19,(24)(25)(26). Perhaps that is why humans often make important decisions as a group (27)(28)(29), even if the only expedient (30,31) but effective (24,(31)(32)(33)(34) group decision mechanism is to use the simple majority voting rule (35).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1C) and the prediction given by SDT-IND, which marks the maximum idealized collective integration benefits for statistically independent observers in single-location perceptual tasks (54). We also investigated whether simple majority voting is as effective for visual search as it is for typical simple perceptual tasks without spatial uncertainty, like our single-location task that we ran as a control, where it can approximate the benefits of optimal pooling (33,34).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The wisdom of crowds for visual search

Juni

Eckstein

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision-making accuracy typically increases through collective integration of people's judgments into group decisions, a phenomenon known as the wisdom of crowds. For simple perceptual laboratory tasks, classic signal detection theory specifies the upper limit for collective integration benefits obtained by weighted averaging of people's confidences, and simple majority voting can often approximate that limit. Life-critical perceptual decisions often involve searching large image data (e.g., medical, security, and aerial imagery), but the expected benefits and merits of using different pooling algorithms are unknown for such tasks. Here, we show that expected pooling benefits are significantly greater for visual search than for single-location perceptual tasks and the prediction given by classic signal detection theory. In addition, we show that simple majority voting obtains inferior accuracy benefits for visual search relative to averaging and weighted averaging of observers' confidences. Analysis of gaze behavior across observers suggests that the greater collective integration benefits for visual search arise from an interaction between the foveated properties of the human visual system (high foveal acuity and low peripheral acuity) and observers' nonexhaustive search patterns, and can be predicted by an extended signal detection theory framework with trial to trial sampling from a varying mixture of high and low target detectabilities across observers (SDT-MIX). These findings advance our theoretical understanding of how to predict and enhance the wisdom of crowds for real world search tasks and could apply more generally to any decision-making task for which the minority of group members with high expertise varies from decision to decision.group decision rules | signal detection theory | ideal observer analyses | wisdom of crowds G roups of insects (1-4), fish (5-7), birds (8-10), mammals (11)(12)(13)(14), and primates (15-18) have been shown to aggregate their individual judgments into group decisions for various tasks (19,20). Although some groups seem to have leaders who make decisions alone on behalf of their groups (17,(21)(22)(23), it is difficult for individuals to outperform even simple aggregations of the entire group's individual judgments (4,7,9,10,19,(24)(25)(26). Perhaps that is why humans often make important decisions as a group (27-29), even if the only expedient (30, 31) but effective (24, 31-34) group decision mechanism is to use the simple majority voting rule (35).Previous human studies have shown that combining people's judgments into group decisions can lead to accuracy benefits in various domains, such as estimation (36-38), detection (34,(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44), identification (45-47), and prediction (46, 48-52), a phenomenon known as the wisdom of crowds (53). For artificial tasks, where perceptual decisions are limited only by noise that is internal to each observer's brain (i.e., no external noise), the maximum wisdom of crowd benefits are specified by the idealized signal dete...

show abstract

Section: Simple Majority Voting Obtains Inferior Wisdom Of Crowd Benementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The wisdom of crowds for visual search

Juni

Eckstein

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, groups did not perform at the level predicted by an ideal observer model (based on the individual members' levels of accuracy), and Sorkin speculated that some "social loafing" occurred in the groups. In recent theoretical work, Sorkin has argued that the unanimity rule may have advantages when extensive information pooling and deliberation are part of the group decision process (Sorkin, Shenghua, & Itzkowitz, 2004).…”

Section: Accuracy As a Criterion For Good Group Decision Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions.

Hastie¹,

Kameda²

2005

Psychological Review

384

349

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How should groups make decisions? The authors provide an original evaluation of 9 group decision rules based on their adaptive success in a simulated test bed environment. When the adaptive success standard is applied, the majority and plurality rules fare quite well, performing at levels comparable to much more resource-demanding rules such as an individual judgment averaging rule. The plurality rule matches the computationally demanding Condorcet majority winner that is standard in evaluations of preferential choice. The authors also test the results from their theoretical analysis in a behavioral study of nominal human group decisions, and the essential findings are confirmed empirically. The conclusions of the present analysis support the popularity of majority and plurality rules in truth-seeking group decisions.Human societies rely on groups to make many important decisions. There is a deep-seated belief that groups are more accurate and more just than individuals. This belief is based on the commonsense notion that a group has more problem-solving resources than any individual member because "several heads are better than one." The belief also depends on the assumption that the group process is effective at eliciting and integrating its members' beliefs and preferences. The most popular decision rule in groups of all types is the majority rule. The majority rule has many virtues: It is "transparent" and the easiest of all social decision rules to execute; it is based on a simple principle of equal participation and equal power; it encourages the expression of sincere personal beliefs, rather than conformity; and it yields more effective problem solutions than typical (and sometimes even most accurate) members could achieve. The present article is an exploration of the capacity of the majority rule and the closely related plurality rule to produce accurate judgments.The majority rule is popular across the full spectrum of human groups from hunter-gatherer tribal societies (Boehm, 1996;Boyd & Richerson, 1985;Wilson, 1994) to modern industrial democracies (Mueller, 1989). Certainly, in ad hoc Western groups, it seems to be the decision rule most frequently adopted to make formal social choices in popular elections, legislatures, and committees. The second most popular explicit procedure in committees is an autocratic "leader decides" rule (e.g., Smith & Bliege-Bird, 2000). However, when no explicit decision rule is adopted by a group or when a designated leader appears to make the group's decision, the implicit decision rule is usually still essentially a majority rule (cf. Davis, 1973Davis, , 1982Kerr, Stasser, & Davis, 1979;Stasser, Kerr, & Davis, 1980). Even when a small group has an explicit rule other than a majority rule, the largest initial faction, that is, the plurality, is usually the ultimate winner (cf. There are several versions of majoritarian rules used in human societies. The most popular version in America is a majority-plurality rule in which the candidate that receives the most votes wins ...

show abstract

“…Sorkin and his colleagues (Sorkin, Kantowitz, & Kantowitz, 1988;Elvers & Sorkin, 1989;Sorkin, Mabry, Weldon, & Elvers, 1991) have a long history of using signal detection theory to model decision making in individuals. Recently Sorkin and his colleagues (Sorkin, 2001;Sorkin, Luan, & Itzkowitz, 2004;Sorkin, 1998;Sorkin & Dai, 1994;Sorkin, Hays, & West, 2001;Sorkin, West, & Robinson, 1998) have developed and tested a normative model of group decision making based on signal detection theory. This model is summarized in Figure 1.…”

Section: This Page Intentionally Left Blankmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signal Detection Analysis of Computer Enhanced Group Decision Making Strategies

Elvers¹

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Government drawings, specifications, or other data included in this document for any purpose other than Government procurement does not in any way obligate the U.S. Government. The fact that the Government formulated or supplied the drawings, specifications, or other data does not license the holder or any other person or corporation; or convey any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may relate to them. This report was cleared for public release by the 88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs Office and is available to the general public, including foreign nationals. Copies may be obtained from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (http://www.dtic.mil).

show abstract

Group Decision and Deliberation: A Distributed Detection Process

Cited by 12 publications

References 57 publications

The wisdom of crowds for visual search

The wisdom of crowds for visual search

The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions.

Signal Detection Analysis of Computer Enhanced Group Decision Making Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About