How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect

Abstract

Social groups can be remarkably smart and knowledgeable when their averaged judgements are compared with the judgements of individuals. Already Galton [Galton F (1907) Nature 75:7] found evidence that the median estimate of a group can be more accurate than estimates of experts. This wisdom of crowd effect was recently supported by examples from stock markets, political elections, and quiz shows [Surowiecki J (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds]. In contrast, we demonstrate by experimental evidence (N = 144) that even mild social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect in simple estimation tasks. In the experiment, subjects could reconsider their response to factual questions after having received average or full information of the responses of other subjects. We compare subjects' convergence of estimates and improvements in accuracy over five consecutive estimation periods with a control condition, in which no information about others' responses was provided. Although groups are initially "wise," knowledge about estimates of others narrows the diversity of opinions to such an extent that it undermines the wisdom of crowd effect in three different ways. The "social influence effect" diminishes the diversity of the crowd without improvements of its collective error. The "range reduction effect" moves the position of the truth to peripheral regions of the range of estimates so that the crowd becomes less reliable in providing expertise for external observers. The "confidence effect" boosts individuals' confidence after convergence of their estimates despite lack of improved accuracy. Examples of the revealed mechanism range from misled elites to the recent global financial crisis.collective judgment | estimate aggregation | experimental social science | swarm intelligence | overconfidence

Crowd Wisdom Relies on Agents’ Ability in Small Groups with a Voting Aggregation Rule

“…Closely related pieces of information instead narrow the variation of individual signals and undermine this effect (Lorenz et al 2011). …”

Meta-Induction and the Wisdom of Crowds

“…It is also straightforward to construct formal models of individual judgment wherein the average value of the judgments of a group of individuals tends to be very accurate (and much more accurate than the average accuracy of the group's individual members). Recent empirical studies also show that the accuracy of a crowd's judgment can be severely compromised when agents within the group are privy to the judgments made by other group members (and are thus able to imitate the judgments of other group members) (Lorenza et al 2011). Similarly, well known formal models of`wise crowds' require that the judgments of a group's members be stochastically independent of the judgments of other members of the group.…”

“…Various markets, from stock exchanges to professional football betting lines (Surowiecki 2004, 12 15), and prediction markets such as the Iowa Electronic Markets and the Hollywood Stock Exchange (that were self-consciously designed to harness the wise crowd e ect) have demonstrated the accuracy of groups of independently acting individuals in making various kinds of prediction (Surowiecki 2004, 17 22;Page 2007, 178). Recent empirical work has also demonstrated the tendency of crowds to make accurate judgments, as well as demonstrating the fact that even modest information about the judgments of other group members can undermine the wise crowd e ect (Lorenza et al 2011). …”

Big Data, Privacy, and Trusted Web: What Needs to Be Done

“…Without privacy, pluralism is in danger, as the following lab experiment shows [19]: Experimental subjects had to guess the correct answer to a factual question such as "How many murderers occurred in the year 2006?" They received a certain amount of money, whenever their answer was close enough to the correct one.…”