CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Team Dynamics and PerformanceDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The effect of diversity on group decision-making

Open access
Karadzhov, Georgi, Vlachos, Andreas, Stafford, Tom·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.01427arXiv 2402.01427
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We explore different aspects of cognitive diversity and its effect on the success of group deliberation. To evaluate this, we use 500 dialogues from small, online groups discussing the Wason Card Selection task - the DeliData corpus. Leveraging the corpus, we perform quantitative analysis evaluating three different measures of cognitive diversity. First, we analyse the effect of group size as a proxy measure for diversity. Second, we evaluate the effect of the size of the initial idea pool. Finally, we look into the content of the discussion by analysing discussed solutions, discussion patterns, and how conversational probing can improve those characteristics. Despite the reputation of groups for compounding bias, we show that small groups can, through dialogue, overcome intuitive biases and improve individual decision-making. Across a large sample and different operationalisations, we consistently find that greater cognitive diversity is associated with more successful group deliberation. Code and data used for the analysis are available in the repository: https://github.com/gkaradzhov/cognitive-diversity-groups-cogsci24.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.01427

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Diversity-aware initialisation selects a more diverse pool of candidate answers, increasing the likelihood that a correct hypothesis is present at the start of debate.

    “First, a diversity-aware initialisation that selects a more diverse pool of candidate answers, increasing the likelihood that a correct hypothesis is present at the start of debate.”

    From Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity (2026) · cites this paper as Karadzhov et al., 2024

    The ‘Diversity of initial ideas’ section examines pools of participants’ solo answers and reports that greater initial diversity is associated with better group performance gain. It does not test a diversity-aware method for selecting candidate answers or show that greater diversity increases the likelihood of a correct answer being present before discussion. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Bang, D., & Frith, C. D. (2017). Making better decisions in groups. Royal Society open science, 4(8), 170193.
  2. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication theory, 12(4), 398-422.
  3. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of experts. Management science, 9(3), 458-467.
  4. Davis-Stober, C. P., Budescu, D. V., Dana, J., & Broomell, S. B. (2014). When is a crowd wise? Decision, 1(2), 79.
  5. Evans, J. S. B. (2016). Reasoning, biases and dual processes: The lasting impact of wason (1960). Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 69(10), 2076-2092.
  6. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75(1949), 450-451.
  7. Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin.. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 32389401
  8. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink.. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:169716095
  9. Karadzhov, G., Stafford, T., & Vlachos, A. (2023). Delidata: A dataset for deliberation in multi-party problem solving. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1-25.
  10. Marcoci, A., Vercammen, A., Bush, M., Hamilton, D. G., Hanea, A., Hemming, V., . . . Fidler, F. (2022). Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), 127.
  11. Massy, W. F. (1965). Principal components regression in exploratory statistical research. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60(309), 234-256.
  12. Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 689-700.
  13. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(2), 57-74.
  14. Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others' preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(5), 794.
  15. Navajas, J., Niella, T., Garbulsky, G., Bahrami, B., & Sigman, M. (2018). Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(2), 126-132.
  16. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., . . . Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15-21. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley .com/doi/abs/10.1087/20150104 doi: https://doi.org/10.1087/ 20150104 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Page, S. (2008). The difference: How the power of diver- sity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies-new edition. Princeton University Press.
  18. Pearson's correlation coefficient. (2008). In W. Kirch (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public health (pp. 1090-1091). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7 2569 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020 -5614-7 2569 · DOI
  19. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 161-209). Elsevier.
  20. Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(6), 1080.
  21. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased informa- tion sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34000088
  22. Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1958.
  23. Wang, H.-C., Fussell, S. R., & Cosley, D. (2011). From diversity to creativity: Stimulating group brainstorming with cultural differences and conversationally-retrieved pictures. In Proceedings of the acm 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 265-274).
  24. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 20(3), 273-281.
  25. Wintle, B. C., Smith, E. T., Bush, M., Mody, F., Wilkinson, D. P., Hanea, A. M., . . . others (2023). Predicting and reasoning about replicability using structured groups. Royal Society Open Science, 10(6), 221553.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karadzhov, G., Vlachos, A., & Stafford, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.01427
arXiv
2402.01427
OpenAlex
W4391556102
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
cognitive diversity, group decision making, collective deliberation, online group discussion, group size, collective intelligence

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