Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wisdom of the social versus non‐social crowd in face identification

Jeckeln, Géraldine, Hahn, Carina A., Noyes, Eilidh, Cavazos, Jacqueline G., O'Toole, Alice J.·2018·British Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Face identification is more accurate when people collaborate in social dyads than when they work alone (Dowsett & Burton, 2015, Br. J. Psychol ., 106 , 433). Identification accuracy is also increased when the responses of two people are averaged for each item to create a ‘non‐social’ dyad (White, Burton, Kemp, & Jenkins, 2013, Appl. Cogn. Psychol ., 27 , 769; White et al ., 2015, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci ., 282 , 20151292). Does social collaboration add to the benefits of response averaging for face identification? We compared individuals, social dyads, and non‐social dyads on an unfamiliar face identity‐matching test. We also simulated non‐social collaborations for larger groups of people. Individuals and social dyads judged whether face image pairs depicted the same‐ or different identities, responding on a 5‐point certainty scale. Non‐social dyads were constructed by averaging the responses of paired individuals. Both social and non‐social dyads were more accurate than individuals. There was no advantage for social over non‐social dyads. For larger non‐social groups, performance peaked at near perfection with a crowd size of eight participants. We tested three computational models of social collaboration and found that social dyad performance was predicted by the decision of the more accurate partner. We conclude that social interaction does not bolster accuracy for unfamiliar face identity matching in dyads beyond what can be achieved by averaging judgements.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjop.12291

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Statistical aggregation of judgments made by multiple people has been shown to produce substantial boosts to accuracy.

    “statistical aggregation of judgments made by multiple people [39, 40]”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199604)10:2<171::AID-ACP385>3.0.CO;2-D · DOI
  2. Apostle H. G., 1982, Selected works
  3. 10.1126/science.1185718 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1037/a0038224 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1176 · DOI
  6. 10.1080/00223980.1935.9917245 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Condorcet J. A. N. de. C., 1785, Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la probabilité des voix
  9. 10.1111/bjop.12103 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1038/075450a0 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1037/h0074666 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/0272989X15581615 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/34.667881 · DOI
  14. 10.1126/science.1216549 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1073/pnas.1601827113 · DOI
  16. 10.1037/h0042344 · DOI
  17. 10.3758/BF03196825 · DOI
  18. 10.1109/TSMCB.2007.907034 · DOI
  19. 10.1145/2355598.2355599 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000024 · DOI
  21. Phillips P. J., 2012, Image and Vision Computing, 177
  22. Surowiecki J., 2004, The wisdom of crowds, 3
  23. 10.2469/faj.v43.n3.50 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/acp.2971 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1098/rspb.2015.1292 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1002/for.3980030103 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jeckeln, G., Hahn, C. A., Noyes, E., Cavazos, J. G., & O'Toole, A. J.
Affiliations
School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences The University of Texas at Dallas Richardson Texas USA
Venue
British Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-05
Volume
109
Issue
4
Pages
724-735
ISSN
  • 0007-1269
  • 2044-8295
Cited by
17
References
1
Language
en
Funders
National Institute of Justice

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