Recently, the use of the wisdom of crowds (WoC) for finding solutions to a wide range of
real-life problems has dramatically expanded. Prior studies have revealed that
diversity, independence, decentralization, and
aggregation are the determinants of collective wisdom. However, these
findings are often based on the so-called point estimates - single values
are used as the representations of individual predictions on the task of estimating
unknown quantities or predicting outcomes of future events. In some situations, interval
values, which are often called interval estimates, can be used for such
representations. Accordingly, one can provide an individual prediction in the form of an
interval value including a lower and an upper bounds. Taking into account this kind of
representation, in this paper, we present a case study in which collectives of randomly
selected predictions can outperform those of most accurate predictions. Then, we evaluate
the WoC level by taking into account diversity and cardinality. The computational
experiments have indicated that diversity is positively related to collective wisdom.
Finally, we discuss some related theoretical and practical implications for further
research.
HosseiniM., MooreJ., AlmalikiM., ShahriA., PhalpK.
and AliR.,
Wisdom of the Crowd within enterprises: Practices and
challenges, Computer Networks90 (2015),
121–132.
2.
McAfeeA.Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest
Challenges, Harvard Business Press,
Boston, 2009.
3.
CowgillB., WolfersJ. and ZitzewitzE.Using Prediction Markets to Track Information Flows: Evidence from
Google, Working Paper, Dartmouth University,
2009.
4.
SurowieckiJ.The wisdom of crowds, Doubleday/Anchor, New
York. 2005.
5.
ArmstrongJ.S.Combining forecasts. In “Principles of forecasting”,
Springer, 2001.
6.
Davis-StoberC.P.,
BudescuD.V., BroomellS.B. and
DanaJ., The
Composition of Optimally Wise Crowds, Decision Analysis12 (2015),
130–143.
7.
ArmstrongJ.S.,
How to Make Better Forecasts and Decisions: Avoid Face-to-face
Meetings, Foresight—The International Journal of Applied
Forecasting5 (2006),
3–8.
8.
CuiR., GallinoS., MorenoA. and ZhangD.J. The Operational
Value of Social Media Information. (2015), Available at SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2702151.
9.
HongL. and PageS.E.,
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 America101 (2004), pp.
16385–16389.
10.
SunsteinC.R.Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge,
Oxford University Press, Inc,
2006.
11.
PageS.E.,
The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms,
Schools, and Societies, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
2007.
12.
WagnerC. and SuhA.,
The Wisdom of Crowds: Impact of Collective Size and Expertise Transfer on
Collective Performance. In Proc. of47th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (2014),
594–603.
13.
CheruvelilK.S.,
SorannoP.A., WeathersK.C., HansonP.C., GoringS.J., FilstrupC.T. and
ReadE.K.,
Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams:
The importance of diversity and interpersonal skills, Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment12 (2014),
31–38.
14.
NoferM. and HinzO.,
Are crowds on the internet wiser than experts? The case of a stock
prediction community, Journal of Business Economics84 (2014),
303–338.
15.
LorenzJ., RauhutH., SchweitzerF. and
HelbingD.,
How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd
effect, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108 (2011),
9020–9025.
16.
VroomV.H.,
Leadership and the decision-making process,
Organizational Dynamics28 (2000),
82–94.
17.
LorgeI., FoxD.,
DavitzJ. and BrennerM., A
survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual
performance, Psychological Bulletin55 (1958),
337–372.
18.
GigoneD. and HastieR.,
Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments,
Psychological Bulletin121 (1997),
149–167.
19.
LarrickR.P. and
SollJ.B.,
Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging
Principle, Management Science52 (2006),
111–127.
20.
LyonA., WintleB.C. and BurgmanM.,
Collective wisdom: Methods of confidence interval
aggregation, Journal of Business Research68 (2015),
1759–1767.
21.
ParkS. and BudescuD.V.,
Aggregating multiple probability intervals to improve
calibration, Judgment and Decision Making10 (2015),
130–143.
22.
GlaserM., LangerT. and WeberM., True
Overconfidence in Interval Estimates: Evidence Based on a New Measure of
Miscalibration, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making26 (2013),
405–417.
23.
NguyenV.D., MerayoM.G. and NguyenN.T.,
Intelligent Collective: The Role of Diversity and Collective
Cardinality, In Proc of ICCCI (2017), pp.
83–92.
24.
ZgrzywaM.,
Consensus Determining with Dependencies of Attributes with Interval
Values, Journal of Universal Computer Science13 (2007),
329–344.
25.
YanivI.,
Weighting and Trimming: Heuristics for Aggregating Judgments under
Uncertainty, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes69 (1997),
237–249.
26.
NguyenN.T.,
Consensus-based Timestamps in Distributed Temporal
Databases, The Computer Journal44 (2001),
398–409.
27.
NguyenN.T.,
Advanced methods for inconsistent knowledge management,
Springer-Verlag, London.
2008.
28.
NguyenN.T.,
Inconsistency of knowledge and collective intelligence,
Cybernetics and Systems39 (2008),
542–562.
29.
KawamuraH. and OhuchiA.,
Evolutionary emergence of collective intelligence with artificial
pheromone communication. In Proc. of 26th Annual Conference of
the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society4 (2000), pp.
2831–2836.
30.
WagnerC. and VinaimontT.,
Evaluating the wisdom of crowds, Journal of
Computer Information Systems11 (2010),
724–732.
31.
NguyenV.D. and NguyenN.T.,
An influence analysis of diversity and collective cardinality on
collective performance, Information Sciences430 (2018),
487–503.
32.
ClemenR.T.,
Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography,
International Journal of Forecasting5 (1989),
559–583.
33.
SollJ.B. and KlaymanJ.,
Overconfidence in interval estimates, Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition30 (2004),
299–314.
34.
Speirs-BridgeA.,
FidlerF., McBrideM., FlanderL., CummingG. and BurgmanM.,
Reducing Overconfidence in the Interval Judgments of
Experts, Risk Analysis30 (2010),
512–523.
35.
GaltonF.,
Vox populi (The wisdom of crowds),
Nature75 (1907),
450–51.
36.
GraefeA. and ArmstrongJ.S.,
Comparing Face-to-Face Meetings, Nominal Groups, Delphi and Prediction
Markets on an Estimation Task, International Journal of
Forecasting27 (2011),
183–195.
37.
CampbellK. and Mínguez-VeraA.,
Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm Financial
Performance, Journal of Business Ethics83 (2008),
435–451.
38.
RobertL. and RomeroD.M.,
Crowd Size, Diversity and Performance. InProc. of
the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(2015), pp. 1379–1382.
39.
AdebamboB.N. and
BlissB. The value of
crowdsourcing: Evidence from earnings forecasts, Working Paper, 2015.
40.
MannR.P. and HelbingD.,
Optimal incentives for collective intelligence,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114 (2017),
5077–5082.
41.
QinH.W., MaXQ.,
HerawanT. and
ZainJ.M.,
Data Filling Approach of Soft Sets under Incomplete
Information, In Proc. of ACIIDS (2011),
pp. 302–311.
42.
MaleszkaM. and NguyenN.T.,
Integration Computing and Collective Intelligence,
Expert Systems With Applications42 (2015),
332–340.
