23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The myopia of crowds: Cognitive load and collective evaluation of answers on Stack Exchange

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Crowds can often make better decisions than individuals or small groups of experts by leveraging their ability to aggregate diverse information. Question answering sites, such as Stack Exchange, rely on the “wisdom of crowds” effect to identify the best answers to questions asked by users. We analyze data from 250 communities on the Stack Exchange network to pinpoint factors affecting which answers are chosen as the best answers. Our results suggest that, rather than evaluate all available answers to a question, users rely on simple cognitive heuristics to choose an answer to vote for or accept. These cognitive heuristics are linked to an answer’s salience, such as the order in which it is listed and how much screen space it occupies. While askers appear to depend on heuristics to a greater extent than voters when choosing an answer to accept as the most helpful one, voters use acceptance itself as a heuristic, and they are more likely to choose the answer after it has been accepted than before that answer was accepted. These heuristics become more important in explaining and predicting behavior as the number of available answers to a question increases. Our findings suggest that crowd judgments may become less reliable as the number of answers grows.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market.

            Hit songs, books, and movies are many times more successful than average, suggesting that "the best" alternatives are qualitatively different from "the rest"; yet experts routinely fail to predict which products will succeed. We investigated this paradox experimentally, by creating an artificial "music market" in which 14,341 participants downloaded previously unknown songs either with or without knowledge of previous participants' choices. Increasing the strength of social influence increased both inequality and unpredictability of success. Success was also only partly determined by quality: The best songs rarely did poorly, and the worst rarely did well, but any other result was possible.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Crises and Collective Socio-Economic Phenomena: Simple Models and Challenges

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                2017
                16 March 2017
                : 12
                : 3
                : e0173610
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dept of Computer Science, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, United States of America
                [2 ]Dept of Political Science, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, United States of America
                [3 ]University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena MO, Italy
                [4 ]Dept of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States of America
                [5 ]Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, United States of America
                [6 ]Department of Business Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America
                [7 ]Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA, United States of America
                Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, ARGENTINA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: after the study was performed, EFA became an employee of PricewaterhouseCoopers. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                • Conceptualization: KB MG EFA KL WR.

                • Data curation: KB EFA.

                • Formal analysis: KB EFA.

                • Funding acquisition: MG KL WR.

                • Investigation: KB EFA.

                • Methodology: KB MG EFA KL.

                • Project administration: MG KL WR.

                • Resources: KB MG EFA KL WR.

                • Software: KB EFA.

                • Supervision: MG KL WR.

                • Validation: KB MG EFA KL WR.

                • Visualization: KB MG EFA KL.

                • Writing – original draft: KB MG EFA KL WR.

                • Writing – review & editing: KB MG EFA KL WR.

                [¤]

                Current address: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Milan, Italy

                Article
                PONE-D-16-33311
                10.1371/journal.pone.0173610
                5354439
                28301531
                1cc42062-1443-4db3-b0fd-331fdbcbf050
                © 2017 Burghardt et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 19 August 2016
                : 22 February 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 0, Pages: 19
                Funding
                Funded by: Army Research Office (US)
                Award ID: W911NF-15-1-0142
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: National Science Foundation
                Award ID: SMA-1360058
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (US)
                Award ID: D14PC00009
                Award Recipient :
                Our work is supported by the Army Research Office under contract W911NF-15-1-0142 (KL, url: http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=29), by the National Science Foundation under grant SMA-1360058 (KL, url: https://www.nsf.gov/), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under contract D14PC00009 (WR and KB, url: http://www.darpa.mil/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Cognitive Heuristics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Cognitive Heuristics
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Cognitive Heuristics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Decision Making
                Cognitive Heuristics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Problem Solving
                Cognitive Heuristics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Problem Solving
                Cognitive Heuristics
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Problem Solving
                Cognitive Heuristics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Social Influence
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Social Influence
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Information Technology
                Data Mining
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Simulation and Modeling
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Attitudes (Psychology)
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Attitudes (Psychology)
                Custom metadata
                Data analyzed in this study were obtained from https://archive.org/details/stackexchange. Details about the analyzed data can be found in the Methods section. Further analyzed data can be found in the Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article