Human Performance Management Group, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology.
Marketing and Supply-Chain Management, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University.
Psychol Sci. 2022 Jun;33(6):971-983. doi: 10.1177/09567976211061321. Epub 2022 Jun 1.
Many decisions rest on people's ability to make estimates of unknown quantities. In these judgments, the aggregate estimate of a crowd of individuals is often more accurate than most individual estimates. Remarkably, similar principles apply when multiple estimates from the same person are aggregated, and a key challenge is to identify strategies that improve the accuracy of people's aggregate estimates. Here, we present the following strategy: Combine people's first estimate with their second estimate, made from the perspective of someone they often disagree with. In five preregistered experiments ( = 6,425 adults; = 53,086 estimates) with populations from the United States and United Kingdom, we found that such a strategy produced accurate estimates (compared with situations in which people made a second guess or when second estimates were made from the perspective of someone they often agree with). These results suggest that disagreement, often highlighted for its negative impact, is a powerful tool in producing accurate judgments.
许多决策取决于人们估计未知数量的能力。在这些判断中，一群人的综合估计往往比大多数个体估计更准确。值得注意的是，当同一个人给出的多个估计值被汇总时，类似的原则也适用，而一个关键的挑战是确定能够提高人们综合估计准确性的策略。在这里，我们提出了以下策略：将人们的第一估计值与他们的第二估计值结合起来，第二估计值是从他们经常意见不合的人的角度得出的。在五个预先注册的实验（= 6425 名成年人；= 53086 个估计值）中，我们从美国和英国的人群中发现，这种策略产生了准确的估计值（与人们进行第二次猜测的情况相比，或者当第二估计值是从他们经常同意的人的角度得出时）。这些结果表明，分歧——通常因其负面影响而受到关注——是产生准确判断的有力工具。
