Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39762566›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Modeling dependent group judgments: A computational model of sequential collaboration.

Maren Mayer, Daniel W Heck

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Maren MayerLeibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (Knowledge Media Research Center), Tübingen, Germany. maren.mayer@iwm-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6830-7768
Daniel W HeckDepartment of Psychology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6302-9252

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sequential collaboration describes the incremental process of contributing to online collaborative projects such as Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap. After a first contributor creates an initial entry, subsequent contributors create a sequential chain by deciding whether to adjust or maintain the latest entry which is updated if they decide to make changes. Sequential collaboration has recently been examined as a method for eliciting numerical group judgments. It was shown that in a sequential chain, changes become less frequent and smaller, while judgments become more accurate. Judgments at the end of a sequential chain are similarly accurate and in some cases even more accurate than aggregated independent judgments (wisdom of crowds). This is at least partly due to sequential collaboration allowing contributors to contribute according to their expertise by selectively adjusting judgments. However, there is no formal theory of sequential collaboration. We developed a computational model that formalizes the cognitive processes underlying sequential collaboration. It allows modeling both sequential collaboration and independent judgments, which are used as a benchmark for the performance of sequential collaboration. The model is based on internal distributions of plausible judgments that contributors use to evaluate the plausibility of presented judgments and to provide new judgments. It incorporates individuals' expertise and tendency to adjust presented judgments as well as item difficulty and the effects of the presented judgment on subsequent judgment formation. The model is consistent with previous empirical findings on change probability, change magnitude, and judgment accuracy incorporating expertise as a driving factor of these effects. Moreover, new predictions for long sequential chains were confirmed by an empirical study. Above and beyond sequential collaboration the model establishes an initial theoretical framework for further research on dependent judgments.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorGroup ProcessesJudgmentModels, PsychologicalComputer SimulationHumansAdvice takingAnchoringMathematical modelWisdom of crowds

Identifiers

PMID39762566
PMCPMC12092544

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.