The Paradox of Interaction: Communication Network Centralization,Shared Task Experience,and the Wisdom of Crowds in Online Crowdsourcing Communities

Abstract

Research on the wisdom of crowds (WOC) identifies two paradoxical effects of communication. The social influence effect hampers the WOC, whereas the collective learning effect improves crowd wisdom. Yet it remains unclear under what conditions such communication impedes or enhances collective wisdom. The current study examined two features characterizing communication in online communities, communication network centralization and shared task experience, and their effect on the WOC. Both these features can serve as indicators of the likelihood that underlying communication may facilitate either social influence or collective learning. With an 8-year longitudinal behavioral-trace data set of 269,871 participants and 1,971 crowds, we showed that communication network centralization negatively affected the WOC. By contrast, shared task experience positively predicted the WOC. Shared task experience also moderated the effect of communication network centralization such that centralized communication networks became more beneficial for crowd performance as shared task experience increased.

Keywords

crowdsourcing social influence collective learning wisdom of crowds online communities

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argote

Aven

B. L.

Kush

(2018). The effects of communication networks and turnover on transactive memory and group performance. Organization Science, 29, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1176

Argote

Miron-Spektor

(2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22, 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0621

Arrow

K. J.

(1962). The economic learning implications of by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155–173.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Barabási

A. L.

Albert

(1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509

Becker

Brackbill

Centola

(2017). Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, E5070–E5076. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615978114

Bimber

Flanagin

A. J.

Stohl

(2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00340.x

Boudreau

K. J.

Lakhani

K. R.

(2015). “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Research Policy, 44, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.08.001

Brabham

D. C.

(2012). Motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application to improve public engagement in transit planning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.693940

10.

Budescu

D. V.

Chen

(2015). Identifying expertise to extract the wisdom of crowds. Management Science, 61, 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1909

11.

Burghardt

Alsina

E. F.

Girvan

Rand

Lerman

(2017). The myopia of crowds: Cognitive load and collective evaluation of answers on Stack Exchange. PLOS ONE, 12, Article e0173610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173610

12.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

DeMarzo

P. M.

Vayanos

Zwiebel

(2003). Persuasion bias, social influence, and unidimensional opinions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 909–968.

14.

Faraj

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Majchrzak

(2011). Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization Science, 22, 1224–1239. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.061

15.

Festinger

Schachter

Back

(1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing (Vol. x). Harper.

16.

Gibbs

J. L.

Kim

(2016). Investigating the role of control and support mechanisms in members’ sense of virtual community. Communication Research, 46, 117–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644023

17.

Goel

Hofman

J. M.

Lahaie

Pennock

D. M.

Watts

D. J

. (2010). Predicting consumer behavior with Web search. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 17486–17490. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005962107

18.

Golub

Jackson

M. O.

(2010). Naïve learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2, 112–149. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.2.1.112

19.

Guth

K. L.

Brabham

D. C.

(2017). Finding the diamond in the rough: Exploring communication and platform in crowdsourcing performance. Communication Monographs, 84, 510–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1359748

20.

Handcock

M. S.

Hunter

D. R.

Butts

C. T.

Goodreau

S. M.

Morris

(2003). statnet: Software tools for the statistical modeling of network data. http://statnetproject.org

21.

Hastie

Kameda

(2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.494

22.

Hong

Wang

G. A.

Fan

. (2020). Crowd characteristics and crowd wisdom: Evidence from an online investment community. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24255

23.

Hong

Page

S. E.

(2001). Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. Journal of Economic Theory, 97, 123–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.2000.2709

24.

Hong

Page

S. E.

(2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46), 16385–16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101

25.

Howe

(2008). Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Crown Business.

26.

Ibarra

(1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471–501.

27.

Janis

I. L.

(1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Cengage.

28.

Jebb

A. T.

Tay

Wang

Huang

(2015). Time series analysis for psychological research: Examining and forecasting change. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2–24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00727

29.

Keuschnigg

Ganser

(2016). Crowd wisdom relies on agents’ ability in small groups with a voting aggregation rule. Management Science, 63, 818–828. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2364

30.

King

A. J.

Cheng

Starke

S. D.

Myatt

J. P.

(2012). Is the true “wisdom of the crowd” to copy successful individuals? Biology Letters, 8, 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0795

31.

Koehler

D. J.

Beauregard

T. A.

(2006). Illusion of confirmation from exposure to another’s hypothesis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 61–78. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888

32.

Lamberson

P. J.

Page

S. E.

(2011). Optimal forecasting groups. Management Science, 58, 805–810. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1441

33.

Leavitt

H. J.

(1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38–50.

34.

Lorenz

Rauhut

Schweitzer

Helbing

(2011). How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 9020–9025. https://doi.org/0.1073/pnas.1008636108

35.

Luo

Iyengar

Venkatasubramanian

(2018). Social influence makes self-interested crowds smarter: An optimal control perspective. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 5, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2017.2780270

36.

Majchrzak

Malhotra

(2016). Effect of knowledge-sharing trajectories on innovative outcomes in temporary online crowds. Information Systems Research, 27, 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0669

37.

Marwell

Oliver

Prahl

(1988). Social networks and collective action: A theory of the critical mass. III. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 502–534.

38.

Mason

Watts

D. J.

(2012). Collaborative learning in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 764–769. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110069108

39.

McCleary

Hay

R. A.

Meidinger

E. E.

McDowall

(1980). Applied time series analysis for the social sciences. SAGE.

40.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159, 56–63.

41.

Mossel

Sly

Tamuz

(2015). Strategic learning and the topology of social networks. Econometrica, 83, 1755–1794. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA12058

42.

Muchnik

Aral

Taylor

S. J.

(2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341, 647–651. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240466

43.

Navajas

Niella

Garbulsky

Bahrami

Sigman

(2018). Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4

44.

Noriega-Campero

Almaatouq

Krafft

Alotaibi

Moussaid

Pentland

(2018). The wisdom of the network: How adaptive networks promote collective intelligence. arXiv:1805.04766. http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04766

45.

Page

S. E.

(2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.

46.

Ransbotham

Kane

G. C.

(2011). Membership turnover and collaboration success in online communities: Explaining rises and falls from grace in Wikipedia. MIS Quarterly, 35, 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391909

47.

Reidl

Seidel

(2018). Learning from mixed signals in online innovation communities. Organization Science, 29, 1010–1032. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1219

48.

Ren

Yan

(2017, May). Crowd diversity and performance in Wikipedia: The mediating effects of task conflict and communication. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 6342–6351). ACM.

49.

Robert

L. P.

Romero

D. M.

(2016). The influence of diversity and experience on the effects of crowd size. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23653

50.

Salganik

M. J.

Dodds

P. S.

Watts

D. J.

(2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311, 854–856. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066

51.

Salganik

M. J.

Watts

D. J.

(2009). Web-based experiments for the study of collective social dynamics in cultural markets. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01030.x

52.

Stohl

(2014). Crowds, clouds, and community. Journal of Communication, 64, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12075

53.

Surowiecki

(2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

54.

Toyokawa

Whalen

Laland

K. N.

(2018). Social learning strategies regulate the wisdom and madness of interactive online crowds. BioRxiv, Article 326637. https://doi.org/10.1101/326637

55.

Walther

J. B.

(1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.

56.

Wisdom

T. N.

Song

Goldstone

R. L.

(2013). Social learning strategies in networked groups. Cognitive Science, 37, 1383–1425. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12052

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB