The effect of diversity on group decision-making (2402.01427v2)
Abstract: We explore different aspects of cognitive diversity and its effect on the success of group deliberation. To evaluate this, we use 500 dialogues from small, online groups discussing the Wason Card Selection task - the DeliData corpus. Leveraging the corpus, we perform quantitative analysis evaluating three different measures of cognitive diversity. First, we analyse the effect of group size as a proxy measure for diversity. Second, we evaluate the effect of the size of the initial idea pool. Finally, we look into the content of the discussion by analysing discussed solutions, discussion patterns, and how conversational probing can improve those characteristics. Despite the reputation of groups for compounding bias, we show that small groups can, through dialogue, overcome intuitive biases and improve individual decision-making. Across a large sample and different operationalisations, we consistently find that greater cognitive diversity is associated with more successful group deliberation. Code and data used for the analysis are available in the repository: https://github.com/gkaradzhov/cognitive-diversity-groups-cogsci24.
- (2017). Making better decisions in groups. Royal Society open science, 4(8), 170193.
- (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face—to—face groups. Communication theory, 12(4), 398–422.
- (1963). An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of experts. Management science, 9(3), 458–467.
- (2014). When is a crowd wise? Decision, 1(2), 79.
- Evans, J. S. B. (2016). Reasoning, biases and dual processes: The lasting impact of wason (1960). Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 69(10), 2076–2092.
- Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75(1949), 450–451.
- Girden, E. R. (1992). Anova: Repeated measures (No. 84). Sage.
- Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?” psychological bulletin.. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:32389401
- Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink.. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:169716095
- (2023). Delidata: A dataset for deliberation in multi-party problem solving. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1–25.
- (2022). Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 127.
- Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 689–700.
- (2011). Why do humans reason? arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
- (2010). Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(5), 794.
- (2018). Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(2), 126–132.
- (2015). Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15-21. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1087/20150104 doi: https://doi.org/10.1087/20150104
- Page, S. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies-new edition. Princeton University Press.
- Pearson’s correlation coefficient. (2008). In W. Kirch (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public health (pp. 1090–1091). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7_2569 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7˙2569
- (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 161–209). Elsevier.
- (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(6), 1080.
- (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34000088
- (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1958.
- (2011). From diversity to creativity: Stimulating group brainstorming with cultural differences and conversationally-retrieved pictures. In Proceedings of the acm 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 265–274).
- Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 20(3), 273–281.
- (2023). Predicting and reasoning about replicability using structured groups. Royal Society Open Science, 10(6), 221553.
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.