• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

通过顺序协作最小化社会偏见:贡献者特征在相关判断中的作用。

Minimizing social bias with sequential collaboration: the role of contributor features in dependent judgments.

作者信息

Mayer Maren, Kimmerle Joachim

机构信息

Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (Knowledge Media Research Center), Schleichstraße 6, 76072, Tübingen, Germany.

Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 24;15(1):26996. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-12227-9.

DOI:10.1038/s41598-025-12227-9
PMID:40707567
Abstract

Collaborative online projects rely on sequential collaboration; a process in which entries are adjusted consecutively by contributors. Sequential collaboration has recently been examined for numerical judgment aggregation for which it produces highly accurate information. However, the impact of additional information about previous contributors on subsequent judgments remains unclear. Thus, Experiments 1A (N = 85), 1B (N = 186), and 1C (N = 302) examined the effect of presented expertise, gender, and group membership of the previous participant, respectively, on participants' behavior in sequential collaboration. We did not find a significant effect of any of the presented features on change probability or change magnitude. In Experiments 2 (N = 538) and 3 (N = 878), we focused on previous participants' expertise as a highly relevant presented feature. We did not find an effect of previous participants' expertise in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 revealed significant but small effects below the smallest effect size of interest. Overall, these findings suggest that sequential collaboration shows some robustness against simple social influences highlighting its potential as a method for judgment aggregation. This study adds to the understanding of how collaborative processes can be optimized for accuracy and reliability. For collaborative projects these results further emphasize that sequential collaboration is a successful and bias-preventing way of collaboration.

摘要

协作式在线项目依赖于顺序协作,即贡献者依次对条目进行调整的过程。最近,人们对顺序协作在数值判断汇总方面进行了研究,结果表明它能产生高度准确的信息。然而,关于先前贡献者的额外信息对后续判断的影响仍不明确。因此,实验1A(N = 85)、1B(N = 186)和1C(N = 302)分别考察了先前参与者所展现的专业知识、性别和所属群体对顺序协作中参与者行为的影响。我们没有发现所呈现的任何特征对变化概率或变化幅度有显著影响。在实验2(N = 538)和实验3(N = 878)中,我们将重点放在先前参与者的专业知识这一高度相关的呈现特征上。在实验2中,我们没有发现先前参与者的专业知识产生影响。实验3揭示了显著但微小的影响,其低于最小效应量。总体而言,这些发现表明顺序协作对简单的社会影响具有一定的稳健性,凸显了其作为判断汇总方法的潜力。这项研究增进了我们对如何优化协作过程以提高准确性和可靠性的理解。对于协作项目而言,这些结果进一步强调了顺序协作是一种成功且能防止偏差的协作方式。

相似文献

1
Minimizing social bias with sequential collaboration: the role of contributor features in dependent judgments.通过顺序协作最小化社会偏见:贡献者特征在相关判断中的作用。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 24;15(1):26996. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-12227-9.
2
The Effect of Labeling During Simulated Contact on Attitudes Toward Autistic Adults.模拟接触过程中的标签对对待成年自闭症患者态度的影响。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 Feb 5;7(1):93-99. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0081. eCollection 2025 Feb.
3
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.在基层医疗机构或医院门诊环境中,如果患者出现以下症状和体征,可判断其是否患有 COVID-19。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
4
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.成人全身麻醉后预防术后恶心呕吐的药物:网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
5
The Black Book of Psychotropic Dosing and Monitoring.《精神药物剂量与监测黑皮书》
Psychopharmacol Bull. 2024 Jul 8;54(3):8-59.
6
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
7
Incentives for preventing smoking in children and adolescents.预防儿童和青少年吸烟的激励措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 6;6(6):CD008645. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008645.pub3.
8
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.
9
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.针对女性的干预措施,以鼓励她们接受宫颈癌筛查。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 6;9(9):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub3.
10
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状Meta分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 9;1(1):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub3.

本文引用的文献

1
The origins of the minimal group paradigm.最小群体范式的起源。
Hist Psychol. 2020 Nov;23(4):371-382. doi: 10.1037/hop0000164. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
2
Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018.性别刻板印象已经发生了变化:1946 年至 2018 年美国民意调查的跨时间元分析。
Am Psychol. 2020 Apr;75(3):301-315. doi: 10.1037/amp0000494. Epub 2019 Jul 18.
3
Unrealistic optimism in advice taking: A computational account.盲目乐观的咨询接受:一种计算解释。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Feb;147(2):170-189. doi: 10.1037/xge0000382. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
4
Gender Stereotypes.性别刻板印象。
Annu Rev Psychol. 2018 Jan 4;69:275-298. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719. Epub 2017 Sep 27.
5
Experiments with More Than One Random Factor: Designs, Analytic Models, and Statistical Power.一个以上随机因素的实验:设计、分析模型和统计功效。
Annu Rev Psychol. 2017 Jan 3;68:601-625. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702. Epub 2016 Sep 28.
6
Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.算法厌恶:人们在看到算法出错后会错误地避免使用算法。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Feb;144(1):114-26. doi: 10.1037/xge0000033. Epub 2014 Nov 17.
7
Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: a comparison with standard textbooks of pharmacology.维基百科中药物信息的准确性和完整性:与药理学标准教科书的比较。
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 24;9(9):e106930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106930. eCollection 2014.
8
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis.内群体偏好合作:一项元分析。
Psychol Bull. 2014 Nov;140(6):1556-81. doi: 10.1037/a0037737. Epub 2014 Sep 15.
9
Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation.社会影响与意见形成的集体动态。
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 5;8(11):e78433. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078433. eCollection 2013.
10
The impact of group membership on collaborative learning with wikis.群体归属对维基协作学习的影响。
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013 Feb;16(2):127-31. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0254. Epub 2012 Oct 31.