The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring the Crowd Within: Probabilistic Representations Within Individuals
Open accessAbstract
A crowd often possesses better information than do the individuals it comprises. For example, if people are asked to guess the weight of a prize-winning ox (Galton, 1907), the error of the average response is substantially smaller than the average error of individual estimates. This fact, which Galton interpreted as support for democratic governance, is responsible for the success of polling the audience in the television program ‘‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ ’ (Surowiecki, 2004) and for the superiority of combined over individual financial forecasts (Clemen, 1989). Researchers agree that this wisdom-of-crowds effect depends on a statistical fact: The crowd’s average will be more accurate as long as some of the error of one individual is statistically independent of the error of other individuals—as seems almost guaranteed to be the case. Whether a similar improvement can be obtained by averaging
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes
Ma, W. J., Beck, J. M., Latham, P. E., & Pouget, A. (2006) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1790 · Cited by 1,457
GALTON, F. (1907) · Nature · doi:10.1038/075450a0 · Cited by 1,080
Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672002611010 · Cited by 556 · cited 1×
“Researchers have previously assumed this view and focused on improving the best estimate (Hirt & Markman, 1995; Mussweiler, Strack, & Pfeiffer, 2000; Stewart, 2001).”
Background
Cited by
How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1008636108 · Cited by 1,017
Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868310366253 · Cited by 874
Statistically optimal perception and learning: from behavior to neural representations
Fiser, J., Berkes, P., Orbán, G., & Lengyel, M. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.003 · Cited by 672
Vul (2014) · doi:10.1111/cogs.12101 · Cited by 502
Buesing, L., Bill, J., Nessler, B., & Maass, W. (2011) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002211 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Vul, E., & Pashler, H.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 645-647
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2138035124
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring the Crowd Within: Probabilistic Representations Within Individuals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02136.x
- The paper
- Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2008). Measuring the Crowd Within: Probabilistic Representations Within Individuals. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02136.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
