The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions
- PMID: 15783295
- DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.494
The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions
Abstract
How should groups make decisions? The authors provide an original evaluation of 9 group decision rules based on their adaptive success in a simulated test bed environment. When the adaptive success standard is applied, the majority and plurality rules fare quite well, performing at levels comparable to much more resource-demanding rules such as an individual judgment averaging rule. The plurality rule matches the computationally demanding Condorcet majority winner that is standard in evaluations of preferential choice. The authors also test the results from their theoretical analysis in a behavioral study of nominal human group decisions, and the essential findings are confirmed empirically. The conclusions of the present analysis support the popularity of majority and plurality rules in truth-seeking group decisions.
Similar articles
-
Democracy under uncertainty: the wisdom of crowds and the free-rider problem in group decision making.Psychol Rev. 2011 Jan;118(1):76-96. doi: 10.1037/a0020699. Psychol Rev. 2011. PMID: 20822292
-
Adaptive site selection rules and variation in group size of barn swallows: individual decisions predict population patterns.Am Nat. 2004 Aug;164(2):121-31. doi: 10.1086/422198. Am Nat. 2004. PMID: 15278838
-
Heuristic and linear models of judgment: matching rules and environments.Psychol Rev. 2007 Jul;114(3):733-58. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.733. Psychol Rev. 2007. PMID: 17638504
-
Multiple systems in decision making.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Apr;1128:53-62. doi: 10.1196/annals.1399.007. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008. PMID: 18469214 Review.
-
Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet.Behav Processes. 2005 May 31;69(2):97-124. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2005.02.019. Behav Processes. 2005. PMID: 15845293 Review.
Cited by
-
Factors of interobserver variability in prostate tumor MRI delineation: impact of PI-QUAL score.Radiol Med. 2024 Dec;129(12):1890-1897. doi: 10.1007/s11547-024-01920-w. Epub 2024 Nov 8. Radiol Med. 2024. PMID: 39516434
-
Collective intelligence meets medical decision-making: the collective outperforms the best radiologist.PLoS One. 2015 Aug 12;10(8):e0134269. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134269. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26267331 Free PMC article.
-
Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Aug 2;113(31):8777-82. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1601827113. Epub 2016 Jul 18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016. PMID: 27432950 Free PMC article.
-
Exploring the effects of risk-taking, exploitation, and exploration on divergent thinking under group dynamics.Front Psychol. 2023 Jan 18;13:1063525. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063525. eCollection 2022. Front Psychol. 2023. PMID: 36743628 Free PMC article.
-
Behavioral and neuro-cognitive bases for emergence of norms and socially shared realities via dynamic interaction.Commun Biol. 2022 Dec 15;5(1):1379. doi: 10.1038/s42003-022-04329-1. Commun Biol. 2022. PMID: 36522539 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
