IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0031043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Does Diversity Trump Ability (and Vice Versa) in Group Decision Making? A Simulation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Shenghua Luan
  • Konstantinos V Katsikopoulos
  • Torsten Reimer

Abstract

It is often unclear which factor plays a more critical role in determining a group's performance: the diversity among members of the group or their individual abilities. In this study, we addressed this “diversity vs. ability” issue in a decision-making task. We conducted three simulation studies in which we manipulated agents' individual ability (or accuracy, in the context of our investigation) and group diversity by varying (1) the heuristics agents used to search task-relevant information (i.e., cues); (2) the size of their groups; (3) how much they had learned about a good cue search order; and (4) the magnitude of errors in the information they searched. In each study, we found that a manipulation reducing agents' individual accuracy simultaneously increased their group's diversity, leading to a conflict between the two. These conflicts enabled us to identify certain conditions under which diversity trumps individual accuracy, and vice versa. Specifically, we found that individual accuracy is more important in task environments in which cues differ greatly in the quality of their information, and diversity matters more when such differences are relatively small. Changing the size of a group and the amount of learning by an agent had a limited impact on this general effect of task environment. Furthermore, we found that a group achieves its highest accuracy when there is an intermediate amount of errors in the cue information, regardless of the environment and the heuristic used, an effect that we believe has not been previously reported and warrants further investigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Shenghua Luan & Konstantinos V Katsikopoulos & Torsten Reimer, 2012. "When Does Diversity Trump Ability (and Vice Versa) in Group Decision Making? A Simulation Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-8, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0031043
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031043
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031043&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0031043?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konstantinos V Katsikopoulos & Andrew J King, 2010. "Swarm Intelligence in Animal Groups: When Can a Collective Out-Perform an Expert?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-5, November.
    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. Stamatios C Nicolis & Natalia Zabzina & Tanya Latty & David J T Sumpter, 2011. "Collective Irrationality and Positive Feedback," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0031043. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.