Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581220›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

On the round number bias and wisdom of crowds in different response formats for numerical estimation.

Hidehito Honda, Rina Kagawa, Masaru Shirasuna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Patient out-of-pocket costs for cannabis use during cancer treatment.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hidehito HondaFaculty of Psychology, Otemon Gakuin University, 2-1-15, Nishiai, Ibaraki-shi, Osaka, 567-8502, Japan. hitohonda.02@gmail.com.
Rina KagawaFaculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennoudai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan. kagawa-r@md.tsukuba.ac.jp.
Masaru ShirasunaFaculty of Psychology, Otemon Gakuin University, 2-1-15, Nishiai, Ibaraki-shi, Osaka, 567-8502, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When asked for numerical estimations, people can respond by stating their estimates (e.g., writing down a number) or indicating a number on a scale. Although these methods are logically the same, such differences may affect the responses to the numerical estimations. In this study, we examined how differences in response format affected responses to numerical estimations using two behavioral experiments. We found that participants showed a round number bias (i.e., people answered estimates with round numbers) when simply stating a number and the distribution of responses tended to be less diverse. In contrast, this tendency was not observed when the participants responded using a scale. Participants provided more diverse estimates when they answered using a scale. Furthermore, we analyzed how this difference in response distribution was related to the wisdom of crowds (the aggregated judgment is as accurate as, or sometimes better than, the best individual judgment in the group) using computer simulations. The results indicated that round number bias affected the achievement of the wisdom of crowds. Particularly, when the group size was small, biased responses resulted in less effective achievement. Our findings suggest that using an appropriate scale is a low-cost method for eliminating round number bias and efficiently achieving the wisdom of crowds.

Indexed as

CrowdingJudgmentBiasComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID35581220
PMCPMC9114128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.