IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/phsmap/v567y2021ics0378437120309225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ambigous role of social influence on the wisdom of crowds: An analytic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mavrodiev, Pavlin
  • Schweitzer, Frank

Abstract

“Wisdom of crowds” refers to the phenomenon that the average opinion of a group of individuals on a given question can be very close to the true answer. It requires a large group diversity of opinions, but the collective error, the difference between the average opinion and the true value, has to be small. We consider a stochastic opinion dynamics where individuals can change their opinion based on the opinions of others (social influence α), but to some degree also stick to their initial opinion (individual conviction β). We then derive analytic expressions for the dynamics of the collective error and the group diversity. We analyze their long-term behavior to determine the impact of the two parameters (α,β) and the initial opinion distribution on the wisdom of crowds. This allows us to quantify the ambiguous role of social influence: only if the initial collective error is large, it helps to improve the wisdom of crowds, but in most cases it deteriorates the outcome. In these cases, individual conviction still improves the wisdom of crowds because it mitigates the impact of social influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Mavrodiev, Pavlin & Schweitzer, Frank, 2021. "The ambigous role of social influence on the wisdom of crowds: An analytic approach," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 567(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:567:y:2021:i:c:s0378437120309225
    DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2020.125624
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437120309225
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only. Journal offers the option of making the article available online on Science direct for a fee of $3,000
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.physa.2020.125624?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anders Johansson & Dirk Helbing & Habib Z. Al-Abideen & Salim Al-Bosta, 2008. "From Crowd Dynamics To Crowd Safety: A Video-Based Analysis," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(04), pages 497-527.
    2. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    3. Guillaume Deffuant & David Neau & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2000. "Mixing beliefs among interacting agents," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 87-98.
    4. Ethan Mollick & Ramana Nanda, 2016. "Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1533-1553, June.
    5. Pavlin Mavrodiev & Claudio J. Tessone & Frank Schweitzer, "undated". "Quantifying the effects of social influence," Working Papers ETH-RC-13-001, ETH Zurich, Chair of Systems Design.
    6. Joaquin Navajas & Tamara Niella & Gerry Garbulsky & Bahador Bahrami & Mariano Sigman, 2018. "Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(2), pages 126-132, February.
    7. David V. Budescu & Eva Chen, 2015. "Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 267-280, February.
    8. Schweitzer, Frank & Zimmermann, Jörg & Mühlenbein, Heinz, 2002. "Coordination of decisions in a spatial agent model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 189-216.
    9. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stevenson, Regan & Allen, Jared & Wang, Tang, 2022. "Failed but validated? The effect of market validation on persistence and performance after a crowdfunding failure," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(2).
    2. Corentin Vande Kerckhove & Samuel Martin & Pascal Gend & Peter J Rentfrow & Julien M Hendrickx & Vincent D Blondel, 2016. "Modelling Influence and Opinion Evolution in Online Collective Behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    3. Bernd Frick & Franziska Prockl, 2018. "Information Precision In Online Communities: Player Valuations On Www.Transfermarkt.De," Working Papers Dissertations 37, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    4. Saul Estrin & Susanna Khavul & Mike Wright, 2022. "Soft and hard information in equity crowdfunding: network effects in the digitalization of entrepreneurial finance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1761-1781, April.
    5. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2018. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1779-1803, April.
    6. Joshua Aaron Becker & Douglas Guilbeault & Edward Bishop Smith, 2022. "The Crowd Classification Problem: Social Dynamics of Binary-Choice Accuracy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3949-3965, May.
    7. Muye Chen & Michel Regenwetter & Clintin P. Davis-Stober, 2021. "Collective Choice May Tell Nothing About Anyone’s Individual Preferences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Vincenz Frey & Arnout van de Rijt, 2021. "Social Influence Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Sequential Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4273-4286, July.
    9. Jon Atwell & Marlon Twyman II, 2023. "Metawisdom of the Crowd: How Choice Within Aided Decision Making Can Make Crowd Wisdom Robust," Papers 2308.15451, arXiv.org.
    10. Jacqueline N. Lane & Misha Teplitskiy & Gary Gray & Hardeep Ranu & Michael Menietti & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2022. "Conservatism Gets Funded? A Field Experiment on the Role of Negative Information in Novel Project Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4478-4495, June.
    11. Jan Lorenz & Martin Neumann, 2018. "Opinion Dynamics And Collective Decisions," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-9, September.
    12. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang, 2024. "Group efficiency and individual fairness tradeoff in making wise decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    13. Joshua Becker & Abdullah Almaatouq & EmH{o}ke-'Agnes Horv'at, 2020. "Network Structures of Collective Intelligence: The Contingent Benefits of Group Discussion," Papers 2009.07202, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    14. Joshua Becker & Douglas Guilbeault & Ned Smith, 2021. "The Crowd Classification Problem: Social Dynamics of Binary Choice Accuracy," Papers 2104.11300, arXiv.org.
    15. Peeters, Thomas, 2018. "Testing the Wisdom of Crowds in the field: Transfermarkt valuations and international soccer results," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 17-29.
    16. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2017. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Discussion Paper Series dp709, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    17. Sven Banisch & Eckehard Olbrich, 2021. "An Argument Communication Model of Polarization and Ideological Alignment," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-1.
    18. Douglas Cumming & Lars Hornuf & Moein Karami & Denis Schweizer, 2023. "Disentangling Crowdfunding from Fraudfunding," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(4), pages 1103-1128, February.
    19. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    20. Li, Sen & Chen, Yan, 2024. "Governing decentralized autonomous organizations as digital commons," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:567:y:2021:i:c:s0378437120309225. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/physica-a-statistical-mechpplications/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.