ArticleScientific reports2022
On the round number bias and wisdom of crowds in different response formats for numerical estimation.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes Towards the Use of Silicone Hydrogel Daily Disposable Contact Lenses (Verofilcon A) Among Neophyte Wearers: Results of a Short-Term Evaluation.Clinical optometry · 2026Article
- Modeling dependent group judgments: A computational model of sequential collaboration.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Patient out-of-pocket costs for cannabis use during cancer treatment.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024Article
- Design of a multiple criteria decision analysis framework for prioritizing high-impact health technologies in a regional health service.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- The autocorrelated Bayesian sampler: A rational process for probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choices, confidence judgments, and response times.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Elicitation and aggregation of multimodal estimates improve wisdom of crowd effects on ordering tasks.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Number Bias in Clinicians' Documentation of Actinic Keratosis Removal.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Can individual subjective confidence in training questions predict group performance in test questions?PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.