4.5 Article

Is the true 'wisdom of the crowd' to copy successful individuals?

期刊

BIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 197-200

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0795

关键词

swarm intelligence; averaging; collective cognition; copying behaviour; cognitive problem; leadership

资金

  1. RVC
  2. NERC [NE/H016600/2]
  3. EPSRC [EP/H013016/1]
  4. EPSRC [EP/H013016/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. NERC [NE/H016600/2, NE/H016600/3] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/H013016/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H016600/3, NE/H016600/2] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diversity of expertise at an individual level can increase intelligence at a collective level-a type of swarm intelligence (SI) popularly known as the 'wisdom of the crowd'. However, this requires independent estimates (rare in the real world owing to the availability of public information) and contradicts people's bias for copying successful individuals. To explain these inconsistencies, 429 people took part in a 'guess the number of sweets' exercise. Guesses made with no public information were diverse, resulting in highly accurate SI. Individuals with access to the previous guess, mean guess or a randomly chosen guess, tended to over-estimate the number of sweets and this undermined SI. However, when people were provided with the current best guess, this prevented very large (inaccurate) guesses, resulting in convergence of guesses towards the true value and accurate SI across a range of group sizes. Thus, contrary to previous work, we show that social influence need not undermine SI, especially where individual decisions are made sequentially and then aggregated. Furthermore, we offer an explanation for why people have a bias to recruit and follow experts in team settings: copying successful individuals can enable accuracy at both the individual and group level, even at small group sizes.

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。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据