ArticlePloS one2026
Best-of-n decision making by human groups.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collective decision making is a fundamental aspect of group behavior in both animals and humans, and often involves reaching a consensus on the best of n options, using empirical evidence. Although many parallels have been drawn between human and animal collective decisions, collective human behavior is rarely studied in the type of embodied scenarios that animals are often faced with. In this study, we placed human groups in a virtual setup similar to nest site selection in social animals, in which they explored a shared environment and reached a consensus based on their observations of empirical features. In groups of up to 10, participants had to reach consensus on the empirically largest of four candidate sites without verbal communication, instead using movement-based interactions in a custom-developed 3D virtual environment for online multi-participant experiments. The results showed that the speed and accuracy of consensus was importantly modulated by perceptual difficulty and information availability, but that no speed-accuracy trade-off was present. Participants attempted to reach consensus on the empirically largest site by flexibly adapting their use of social information to perceptual difficulty, their spatial position, and the time already spent supporting some option. When a minority of informed individuals were present, these individuals exercised greater independence and influenced the group to faster and more accurate consensus. These results extend previous findings on social decision making strategies in humans to nonverbal scenarios akin to those of social insects.
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.