期刊
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 1325-1338出版社
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0146167211410436
关键词
collaborative judgment; dyads; naive realism; disagreement; judgment aggregation
Four studies examined dyadic collaboration on quantitative estimation tasks. In accord with the tenets of naive realism, dyad members failed to give due weight to a partner's estimates, especially those greatly divergent from their own. The requirement to reach joint estimates through discussion increased accuracy more than reaching agreement through a mere exchange of numerical bids. However, even the latter procedure increased accuracy, relative to that of individual estimates (Study 1). Accuracy feedback neither increased weight given to partner's subsequent estimates nor produced improved accuracy (Study 2). Long-term dance partners, who shared a positive estimation bias, failed to improve accuracy when estimating their performance scores (Study 3). Having dyad members ask questions about the bases of partner's estimates produced greater yielding and accuracy increases than having them explain their own estimates (Study 4). The latter two studies provided additional direct and indirect evidence for the role of naive realism.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据