Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds

TL;DR

This study demonstrates that structured small-group deliberation and aggregation of consensus decisions can surpass the accuracy of large crowds' independent judgments, highlighting the value of social influence within groups.

Contribution

It shows that small-group deliberation enhances collective accuracy, and aggregated consensus decisions from few groups can outperform large crowds' independent opinions.

Findings

Aggregating consensus decisions from small groups improves accuracy.

Four group consensus decisions can outperform thousands of independent opinions.

Social influence within groups enhances collective wisdom.

Abstract

The aggregation of many independent estimates can outperform the most accurate individual judgment. This centenarian finding, popularly known as the wisdom of crowds, has been applied to problems ranging from the diagnosis of cancer to financial forecasting. It is widely believed that social influence undermines collective wisdom by reducing the diversity of opinions within the crowd. Here, we show that if a large crowd is structured in small independent groups, deliberation and social influence within groups improve the crowd's collective accuracy. We asked a live crowd (N=5180) to respond to general-knowledge questions (e.g., what is the height of the Eiffel Tower?). Participants first answered individually, then deliberated and made consensus decisions in groups of five, and finally provided revised individual estimates. We found that averaging consensus decisions was substantially more accurate than aggregating the initial independent opinions. Remarkably, combining as few as four consensus choices outperformed the wisdom of thousands of individuals.