ReviewRoyal Society open science2017
Making better decisions in groups.
Review in Royal Society open science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disruption in Wrist Literature: Identifying Paradigm-Shifting Publications.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- What are the most disruptive publications in shoulder surgery?JSES international · 2026Article
- Best-of-n decision making by human groups.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparing distributed knowledge: the effects of visualization format and comparison strategy on task performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- What are the most important research questions within prediabetes? A priority setting partnership in collaboration with patients, healthcare professionals and researchers.Diabetologia · 2025Article
- Effect of interacting minds on response criterion in two person perceptual decision making.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Research priorities for faecal incontinence in adults: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Collective decision making by embodied neural agents.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Information-Theoretic Measures of Metacognition: Bounds and Relation to Group Performance.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Characterizing the Decision-Making Competency of Nurse Managers: A Scoping Review.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- A new sociology of humans and machines.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Humans flexibly integrate social information despite interindividual differences in reward.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- How large language models can reshape collective intelligence.Nature human behaviour · 2024Review
- Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Earlier social information has a stronger influence on judgments.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Mixed-species flock sizes and compositions influence flock members' success in three field experiments with novel feeders.PloS one · 2024Article
- Bullied: Exploring the concepts of territorialism and groupthink involvement in workplace bullying.Nursing open · 2023Review
- Predicting group benefits in joint multiple object tracking : Predicting group benefits.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Comparison of methods to engage diverse stakeholder populations in prioritizing PrEP implementation strategies for testing in resource-limited settings: a cross-sectional study.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- On the social nature of abstraction: cognitive implications of interaction and diversity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We review the literature to identify common problems of decision-making in individuals and groups. We are guided by a Bayesian framework to explain the interplay between past experience and new evidence, and the problem of exploring the space of hypotheses about all the possible states that the world could be in and all the possible actions that one could take. There are strong biases, hidden from awareness, that enter into these psychological processes. While biases increase the efficiency of information processing, they often do not lead to the most appropriate action. We highlight the advantages of group decision-making in overcoming biases and searching the hypothesis space for good models of the world and good solutions to problems. Diversity of group members can facilitate these achievements, but diverse groups also face their own problems. We discuss means of managing these pitfalls and make some recommendations on how to make better group decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.