Does interaction matter? Testing whether a confidence heuristic can replace interaction in collective decision-making

Consciousness and Cognition

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 13-23

  Bang, Dan ^a,b,c   Fusaroli, Riccardo ^a   Tylén, Kristian ^a   Olsen, Karsten ^a   Latham, Peter E ^d   Lau, Jennifer Y F ^b,c   Roepstorff, Andreas ^a   Rees, Geraint ^e,f   Frith, Chris D ^a,f,g   Bahrami, Bahador ^a,e,f  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c MAGDALEN COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^g ALL SOULS COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Collective decision making; Computational; Confidence; Heuristic; Interaction; Metacognition; Perception; Reaction time; Signal detection theory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONFIDENCE HEURISTIC; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MENTAL TASK; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; RELIABILITY; RESPONSE TIME; SIGNAL DETECTION; SOCIAL INTERACTION; YOUNG ADULT; HUMAN RELATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; JUDGMENT; MALE; NEGOTIATING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84896270677     PISSN: 10538100     EISSN: 10902376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bahrami B., Didino D., Frith C., Butterworth B., Rees G. Collective enumeration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2013, 39(2):338-347.
2. Bahrami B., Olsen K., Bang D., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C. What failure in collective decision-making tells us about metacognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2012, 367(1594):1350-1365.
3. Bahrami B., Olsen K., Bang D., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C. Together, slowly but surely: The role of social interaction and feedback in the build-up of benefit in collective decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2012, 38(1):3-8.
4. Bahrami B., Olsen K., Latham P.E., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C.D. Optimally interacting minds. Science 2010, 329(5995):1081-1085.
5. Baranski J.V., Petrusic W.M. On the calibration of knowledge and perception. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 1994, 49(3):397-407.
6. Behrens T.E., Hunt L.T., Woolrich M.W., Rushworth M.F. Associative learning of social value. Nature 2008, 456(7219):245-249.
7. Fleming S.M., Weil R.S., Nagy Z., Dolan R.J., Rees G. Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science 2010, 329(5998):1541-1543.
8. Fusaroli R., Bahrami B., Olsen K., Roepstorff A., Rees G., Frith C., et al. Coming to terms: Quantifying the benefits of linguistic coordination. Psychological Science 2012, 23(8):931-939.
9. Galvin S., Podd J., Drga V., Whitmore J. Type 2 tasks in the theory of signal detectability: Discrimination between correct and incorrect decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2003, 10(4):843-876.
10. Gigerenzer G. Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2008, 3(1):20-29.
11. Gilovich T., Savitsky K., Medvec V.H. The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 75(2):332-346.
12. Harvey N. Confidence in judgement. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1997, 1(2):78-82.
13. Henry R.A., Strickland O.J., Yorges S.L., Ladd D. Helping groups determine their most accurate member: The role of outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1996, 26(13):1153-1170.
14. Hill G.W. Group versus individual performance: Are N+1 heads better than one?. Psychological Bulletin 1982, 91(3):517-539.
15. Juslin P., Olsson H. Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: a sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review 1997, 104(2):344-366.
16. Kepecs A., Uchida N., Zariwala H.A., Mainen Z.F. Neural correlates, computation and behavioural impact of decision confidence. Nature 2008, 455(7210):227-231.
17. Koriat A. When are two heads better than one and why?. Science 2012, 336(6079):360-362.
18. Kornbrot D. Signal detection theory, the approach of choice: Model-based and distribution-free measures and evaluation. Perception and Psychophysics 2006, 68(3):393-414.
19. Lau H., Maniscalco B. Should confidence be trusted?. Science 2010, 329(5998):1478-1479.
20. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah. 2nd ed.
21. Overgaard M., Sandberg K. Kinds of access: Different methods for report reveal different kinds of metacognitive access. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2012, 367(1594):1350-1365.
22. Pallier G., Wilkinson R., Danthir V., Kleitman S., Knezevic G., Stankov L., et al. The role of individual differences in the accuracy of confidence judgments. The Journal of General Psychology 2002, 129(3):257-299.
23. Patel D., Fleming S.M., Kilner J.M. Inferring subjective states through the observation of actions. Proceedings of Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2012, 279(1748):4853-4860.
24. Pleskac T.J., Busemeyer J. Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of confidence, choice, and response time. Psychological Review 2010, 117(3):864-901.
25. Sniezek J.A., Henry R.A. Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1989, 43(1):1-28.
26. Song C., Kanai R., Fleming S.M., Weil R.S., Schwarzkopf D.S., Rees G. Relating inter-individual differences in metacognitive performance on different perceptual tasks. Consciousness and Cognition 2011, 20(4):1787-1792.
27. Tenney E.R., MacCoun R.J., Spellman B.A., Hastie R. Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Psychological Science 2007, 18(1):46-50.
28. Thomas J.P., McFadyen R.G. The confidence heuristic: A game-theoretic analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology 1995, 16(1):97-113.
29. Vickers D., Packer J. Effects of alternating set for speed or accuracy on response-time, accuracy and confidence in a unidimensional discrimination task. Acta Psychologica 1982, 50(2):179-197.