Confidence matching in group decision-making
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When two individuals collaborate to pool confidence estimates, the partners rapidly and naturally adapt their confidence levels to converge on a common scale, so that one does not dominate the other.
“Previous work has shown that when two individuals are collaborating in this way, the two partners rapidly and naturally adapt their confidence levels to converge on a common scale, so that one does not dominate the other (Bang et al. 2017).”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Bang et al. 2017
The paper reports that partners’ mean confidence converged during joint decisions and that matching occurred over short time scales (confidence-matching results and learning-model discussion; page numbers unavailable). It does not establish that they adapted *so that* neither partner would dominate: the discussion treats maintaining equal influence as a possible, untested explanation. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn a collaborative context, it is important to align the distribution of our confidence statements with those of others to avoid dominating a group interaction or being dominated.
“In a collaborative context, it is important to align the distribution of our confidence statements with those of others to avoid dominating a group interaction (or being dominated ourselves; Bang et al. 2017).”
From Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Bang et al. 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678 · see citing works
Fleming, S. M., & Lau, H. C. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443 · Cited by 1,386 · see citing works
Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H.-H. (2009) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Friston, K., & Frith, C. (2015) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.003 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Active inference, communication and hermeneutics
Friston, K. J., & Frith, C. D. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.025 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Doubly Bayesian Analysis of Confidence in Perceptual Decision-Making
Aitchison, L., Bang, D., Bahrami, B., & Latham, P. E. (2015) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004519 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Self-citationVerification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability
BRIER, G. W. (1950) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3c0001:vofeit%3e2.0.co;2
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Schelling, T. C. The Strategy of Conflict. (Harvard University Press, 1980).
- Mahmoodi, A., Bang, D., Ahmadabadi, M. N. & Bahrami, B. Learning to make collective decisions: the impact of confidence escalation. PLoS One 8, e81195 (2013).
- Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. (MIT Press, 1998).
- Mahmoodi, A. et al. Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 3835-3840 (2015).
- Taylor, A. L., Dessai, S. & de Bruin, W. B. Communicating uncertainty in seasonal and interannual climate forecasts in Europe. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 373, 20140454 (2015).
- Bahrami, B. et al. What failure in collective decision-making tells us about metacognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 1350-1365 (2012).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Metacognition and Confidence: A Review and Synthesis
Fleming, S. M. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-032425 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
“In a collaborative context, it is important to align the distribution of our confidence statements with those of others, to avoid dominating a group interaction (or being dominated ourselves; Bang et al., 2017).”
Distinct encoding of decision confidence in human medial prefrontal cortex
Bang, D., & Fleming, S. M. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1800795115 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Self-citationHuman Metacognition Across Domains: Insights from Individual Differences and Neuroimaging
Rouault, M., McWilliams, A., Allen, M. G., & Fleming, S. M. (2018) · Personality Neuroscience · doi:10.1017/pen.2018.16 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Bell, V., Raihani, N., & Wilkinson, S. (2021) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702620951553 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Private–public mappings in human prefrontal cortex
Bang, D., Ershadmanesh, S., Nili, H., & Fleming, S. M. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.56477 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationNeurocomputational mechanisms of confidence in self and others
Bang, D., Moran, R., Daw, N. D., & Fleming, S. M. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31674-w · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationIdentifying cultural differences in metacognition.
van der Plas, E., Zhang, S., Dong, K., Bang, D., Li, J., Wright, N. D., & Fleming, S. M. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0001209 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Bang, D., Aitchison, L., Moran, R., Herce Castanon, S., Rafiee, B., Mahmoodi, A., Lau, J. Y. F., Latham, P. E., Bahrami, B., & Summerfield, C.
- Affiliations
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- King's College London (GB)
- Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bang, Dan
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2017-05-26
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2619700324
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 8.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- discovery.ucl.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (099741/Z/12/Z)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- group decision making, confidence calibration, herding behavior, heuristic strategies, miscommunication, cultural differences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
