Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures. Mahmoodi, A., Bang, D., Olsen, K., Zhao, Y. A., Shi, Z., Broberg, K., Safavi, S., Han, S., Nili Ahmadabadi, M., Frith, C. D., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Bahrami, B. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(12):3835-3840, 2015.
Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
We tend to think that everyone deserves an equal say in a debate. This seemingly innocuous assumption can be damaging when we make decisions together as part of a group. To make optimal decisions, group members should weight their differing opinions according to how competent they are relative to one another; whenever they differ in competence, an equal weighting is suboptimal. Here, we asked how people deal with individual differences in competence in the context of a collective perceptual decision-making task. We developed a metric for estimating how participants weight their partner's opinion relative to their own and compared this weighting to an optimal benchmark. Replicated across three countries (Denmark, Iran, and China), we show that participants assigned nearly equal weights to each other's opinions regardless of true differences in their competence—even when informed by explicit feedback about their competence gap or under monetary incentives to maximize collective accuracy. This equality bias, whereby people behave as if they are as good or as bad as their partner, is particularly costly for a group when a competence gap separates its members.
@ARTICLE{Mahmoodi2015,
  author = {Mahmoodi, Ali and Bang, Dan and Olsen, Karsten and Zhao, Yuanyuan
	Aimee and Shi, Zhenhao and Broberg, Kristina and Safavi, Shervin
	and Han, Shihui and Nili Ahmadabadi, Majid and Frith, Chris D. and
	Roepstorff, Andreas and Rees, Geraint and Bahrami, Bahador},
  title = {Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures},
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  year = {2015},
  volume = {112},
  pages = {3835-3840},
  number = {12},
  abstract = {We tend to think that everyone deserves an equal say in a debate.
	This seemingly innocuous assumption can be damaging when we make
	decisions together as part of a group. To make optimal decisions,
	group members should weight their differing opinions according to
	how competent they are relative to one another; whenever they differ
	in competence, an equal weighting is suboptimal. Here, we asked how
	people deal with individual differences in competence in the context
	of a collective perceptual decision-making task. We developed a metric
	for estimating how participants weight their partner's opinion relative
	to their own and compared this weighting to an optimal benchmark.
	Replicated across three countries (Denmark, Iran, and China), we
	show that participants assigned nearly equal weights to each other's
	opinions regardless of true differences in their competence---even
	when informed by explicit feedback about their competence gap or
	under monetary incentives to maximize collective accuracy. This equality
	bias, whereby people behave as if they are as good or as bad as their
	partner, is particularly costly for a group when a competence gap
	separates its members.},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1421692112},
  eprint = {http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3835.full.pdf},
  url = {http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3835.abstract}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021