The Contingent Wisdom of Dyads: When Discussion Enhances vs. Undermines the Accuracy of Collaborative Judgments

References

• Ancona DG, Caldwell DF (1992) Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organ. Sci. 3(3):321–341.Link, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Tung Au W, Bender RH, Budescu DV, Dietz CB, Gu H, Wallsten TS, Zauberman G (2000) The effects of averaging subjective probability estimates between and within judges. J. Experiment. Psych.: Appl. 6(2):130–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong JS (2006) How to make better forecasts and decisions: Avoid face-to-face meetings. FORESIGHT: Internat. J. Appl. Forecasting 5(Fall):3–15.Google Scholar
• Barnes J, ed. (1995) The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Beersma B, De Dreu CKW (2005) Conflict’s consequences: Effects of social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent group functioning and performance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 89(3):358–374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonaccio S, Dalal RS (2006) Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 101(2):127–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT (1989) Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography. Internat. J. Forecasting 5(4):559–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW (2006) When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. J. Management 32(1):83–107.Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW, West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. J. Appl. Psych. 86(6):1191–1201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA, van Knippenberg D (2008) Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 12(1):22–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH (1971) A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 7(4):466–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deutsch M, Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. 51(3):629–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunbar RIM, Duncan NDC, Nettle D (1995) Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups. Human Nature 6(1):67–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1994) An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Kramer RM (2003) Assessing creativity in hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Acad. Management J. 46(3):283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell S (2011) Social influence benefits the wisdom of individuals in the crowd. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(36):E625–E625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galton F (1907) Vox populi. Nature 75(7):450–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigone D, Hastie R (1997) Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments. Psych. Bull. 121(1):149–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graefe A, Armstrong JS (2011) Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task. Internat. J. Forecasting 27(1):183–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heath C, Gonzalez R (1995) Interaction with others increases decision confidence but not decision quality: Evidence against information collection views of interactive decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 61(3):305–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herzog SM, Hertwig R (2009) The wisdom of many in one mind: Improving individual judgments with dialectical bootstrapping. Psych. Sci. 20(2):231–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herzog SM, Hertwig R (2014) Harnessing the wisdom of the inner crowd. Trends Cognitive Sci. 18(10):504–506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth R (1978) A note on aggregating opinions. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 21(1):40–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klugman SF (1947) Group and individual judgments for anticipated events. J. Soc. Psych. 26(1):21–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knight HC (1921) A comparison of the reliability of group and individual judgments. Unpublished master’s thesis. Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Koehler DJ, Beauregard TA (2006) Illusion of confirmation from exposure to another’s hypothesis. J. Behav. Decision Making 19(1):61–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurtzberg TR (2005) Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Res. J. 17(1):51–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Soll JB (2006) Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Sci. 52(1):111–127.Link, Google Scholar
• Lerner JS, Tetlock PE (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psych. Bull. 125(2):255–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Jaworski RA, Bennett N (2004) Social loafing: A field investigation. J. Management 30(2):285–304.Google Scholar
• Lobo MS, Yao D (2010) Human Judgement Is Heavy Tailed: Empirical Evidence and Implications for the Aggregation of Estimates and Forecasts (INSEAD, Fontainebleau).Google Scholar
• Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, Helbing D (2011) How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(22):9020–9025.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lorge I, Fox D, Davitz J, Brenner M (1958) A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance, 1920–1957. Psych. Bull. 55(6):337–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makridakis S, Winkler RL (1983) Averages of forecasts: Some empirical results. Management Sci. 29(9):987–996.Link, Google Scholar
• Minson JA, Mueller JS (2012) The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psych. Sci. 23(3):219–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Minson JA, Mueller JS (2013) Groups weight outside information less than individuals do, although they should: Response to Schultze, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2013). Psych. Sci. 24(7):1373–1374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Minson JA, Liberman V, Ross L (2011) Two to tango effects of collaboration and disagreement on dyadic judgment. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 37(10):1325–1338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mooney CZ, Duval RD (1993) Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller JS (2012) Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 117(1):111–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagan-Cirincione P (1994) Improving the accuracy of group judgment: A process intervention combining group facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 58(2):246–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowe G, Wright G (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. Internat. J. Forecasting 15(4):353–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schultze T, Mojzisch A, Schulz-Hardt S (2012) Why groups perform better than individuals at quantitative judgment tasks: Group-to-individual transfer as an alternative to differential weighting. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 118(1):24–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schultze T, Mojzisch A, Schulz-Hardt S (2013) Groups weight outside information less than individuals do because they should: Response to Minson and Mueller (2012). Psych. Sci. 24(7):1371–1372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Selig JP, Preacher KJ (2008) Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects. [Computer software], available from http://quantpsy.org/.Google Scholar
• Silver N (2012) The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail—But Some Don’t (Penguin Group, New York).Google Scholar
• Simmons J, Nelson L, Simonsohn U (2012) A 21 word solution. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Galak J, Frederick S (2011) Intuitive biases in choice versus estimation: Implications for the wisdom of crowds. J. Consumer Res. 38(1):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sniezek JA, Henry RA (1989) Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 43(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sunstein CR (2006) Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds (Random House, New York).Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL (1974) The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Acad. Management J. 17(4):605–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vul E, Pashler H (2008) Measuring the crowd within probabilistic representations within individuals. Psych. Sci. 19(7):645–647.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weldon E, Gargano GM (1988) Cognitive loafing: The effects of accountability and shared responsibility on cognitive effort. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 14(1):159–171.Crossref, Google Scholar