From the corporate boardroom to the kitchen table, important decisions are often made in collaboration. But are two—or three or five—heads better than one? Not always, according to new research from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "People who make judgments by working with someone else are more confident in those judgments. As a result they take less input from other people"—and this myopia wipes out any advantage a pair may have over an individual, says psychologist Julia A. Minson, who conducted the study with Jennifer S. Mueller. "The collaborative process itself is the problem." The findings appear in the journal Psychological Science, published by the Association for Psychological Science.
To test the hypothesis that confidence born of collaboration takes a toll on the quality of judgment, Minson and Mueller asked 252 people to estimate nine quantities related to U.S. geography, demographics, and commerce, either individually or in pairs after discussion. They were then offered the estimates of other individuals and pairs and allowed to revise their own; the final estimates therefore could come from the efforts of two to four people. To sweeten the pot, participants earned a $30 bonus for each of two estimation rounds, but lost $1 for each percentage point their answer deviated from correct. Individuals also rated their confidence in their judgments.
The results: People working with a partner were more confident in their estimates and significantly less willing to take outside advice. The pairs' guesses were marginally more accurate than those of the individuals at first. But after revision (or lack thereof), that difference was gone. Even the combined judgments of four people yielded no better results than those of two or three. Finally, the researchers found that had the pairs yielded to outside input, their estimates would have been significantly more accurate. Their confidence was costly.
So should we toss out teamwork? No, says Minson, but since collaboration is expensive and time consuming, managers should use it efficiently. For one thing, a group of 10 is not 10 times better. "Mathematically, you get the biggest bang from the buck going from one decision-maker to two. For each additional person, that benefit drops off in a downward sloping curve." Most important is awareness of the costs of teamwork. "If people become aware that collaboration leads to an increase in overconfidence, you can set up ways to mitigate it. Teams could be urged to consider and process each others' inputs more thoroughly."
The same goes for a couple choosing a mortgage or a car, Minson cautions. "Just because you make a decision with someone else and you feel good about it, don't be so sure that you've solved the problem and you don't need help from anybody else."
Association for Psychological Science: http://www.psychologicalscience.org
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
Doctors have used perfect replicas of childrens' hearts to uncover and repair hidden defects
An experiment testing people’s altruism in the face of electric shocks is clear on one thing: we are drawn to these little blasts
Researchers gear up tests in West Africa to see whether blood from Ebola survivors can help people who are sick with the disease. This is part of a broader effort to test therapies in West Africa.
The virus's foray into Europe coincides with peak production of Christmas turkeys, the poultry species most vulnerable to bird flu
A novel kind of nanoparticle could lead to more effective cancer treatments.Patients and doctors often don’t know if surgery to remove cancerous tissue was successful until scans are performed months later. A new kind of nanoparticle could show patients if they’re in the clear much earlier.
One challenge in evaluating the effectiveness of different medical procedures, is that patients behave differently after different procedures. Is this true for patients getting heart surgery?
It is only in the aftermath of treatment that survivors discern that their adrenalin alone wont fuel the rest of their recovery. For many, surviving cancer is followed by even more hardship
Just down the road from Facebook and Google, Dr. Phil Wagner runs a laboratory dedicated to optimizing the performance of some of the world's top athletes. At Sparta Performance Science in Menlo Park, California, Wagner and his team bring the spirit of Silicon Valley to bear on the athletic world, helping athletes find the tiny advantages that add to championships. Join us for a trip inside the lab to see where sports meets science.
Pieter Cohen, an internist in Massachusetts, got interested in dietary supplements several years ago, when some of his …
The risk of overdiagnosis and false positives means the UK may be barking up the wrong tree in trialling a wider target age range for breast screening