Group decisions based on confidence weighted majority voting

  title={Group decisions based on confidence weighted majority voting},
  author={Sascha Meyen and Dorothee M B Sigg and Ulrike von Luxburg and Volker H. Franz},
  journal={Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications},
Background It has repeatedly been reported that, when making decisions under uncertainty, groups outperform individuals. Real groups are often replaced by simulated groups: Instead of performing an actual group discussion, individual responses are aggregated by a numerical computation. While studies have typically used unweighted majority voting (MV) for this aggregation, the theoretically optimal method is confidence weighted majority voting (CWMV)—if independent and accurate confidence… 

Figures and Tables from this paper


Accuracy and confidence in group judgment
A weighting scheme model is used to describe and evaluate the process by which groups combine individual judgments and their associated confidence levels into a single group judgment with some level
The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions.
An original evaluation of 9 group decision rules based on their adaptive success in a simulated test bed environment supports the popularity of majority and plurality rules in truth-seeking group decisions.
Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures
It is found that people show a strong equality bias: they weight each other’s opinion equally regardless of differences in their reliability, even when this strategy was at odds with explicit feedback or monetary incentives.
Revision, Weighting, and commitment in consensus group judgment
Abstract This study investigates group members' estimates of unknown quantities and their confidence in those estimates in the context of a Revision and Weighting Model of consensus group judgment.
Signal-detection analysis of group decision making.
Signal-detection theory is used to model the behavior of groups of human participants in a visual detection task and its specification allows specification of performance efficiency, which is a measure of how closely a group's performance matches the statistically optimal group.
Making better decisions in groups
The advantages of group decision-making in overcoming biases and searching the hypothesis space for good models of the world and good solutions to problems are highlighted and means of managing pitfalls are discussed.
Group discussion improves lie detection
A consistent group advantage is found for detecting small “white” lies as well as intentional high-stakes lies, an effect that comes primarily from an increased ability to correctly identify when a person is lying.
Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependencies
AbstractConsider a group of people confronted with a dichotomous choice (for example, a yes or no decision). Assume that we can characterize each person by a probability, pi, of making the ‘better’
When two heads are better than one and when they can be worse: The amplification hypothesis.
  • A. Koriat
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Journal of experimental psychology. General
  • 2015
Group deliberation had an added effect over confidence-based judgments, possibly due to the exchange of arguments within a dyad, but both confidence slating and group deliberation affected performance in the same direction, improving accuracy whenindividual accuracy was better than chance, but impairing it when individual accuracy was below chance.
Collective Choice, Collaboration, and Communication.
This article reviews recent empirical research on collective choice and collaborative problem solving and identifies informational structures, individual processing biases, and social motivations that inhibit and facilitate the discovery of hidden profiles.