Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups.

Abstract

In many intellective tasks groups consistently outperform individuals. One factor is that the individual(s) with the best answer is able to convince the other group members using sound argumentation. Another factor is that the most confident group member imposes her answer whether it is right or wrong. In Experiments 1 and 2, individual participants were given arguments against their answer in intellective tasks. Demonstrating sound argumentative competence, many participants changed their minds to adopt the correct answer, even though the arguments had no confidence markers, and barely any participants changed their minds to adopt an incorrect answer. Confidence could not explain who changed their mind, as the least confident participants were as likely to change their minds as the most confident. In Experiments 3 (adults) and 4 (10-year-olds), participants solved intellective tasks individually and then in groups, before solving transfer problems individually. Demonstrating again sound argumentative competence, participants adopted the correct answer when it was present in the group, and many succeeded in transferring this understanding to novel problems. Moreover, the group member with the right answer nearly always managed to convince the group even when she was not the most confident. These results show that argument quality can overcome confidence among the factors influencing the discussion of intellective tasks. Explanations for apparent exceptions are discussed.

The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony

“…Thus, strong enough arguments should be able to overcome a deficit of trust: a sender who is not trusted enoughfor instance because she lacks powerbut who provides strong arguments, should be believed (Mercier & Sperber, 2011). Evidence in adults suggests that strong arguments can take precedence over sourcerelated cues such as confidence, competence, and honesty (Trouche, Sander & Mercier, 2014;Trouche, Shao & Mercier, submitted).…”

Transmission Chains or Independent Solvers? A Comparative Study of Two Collective Problem-Solving Methods

“…In human groups, the most common case of direct interaction for solving problems takes the form of group discussions (Stasser and Stewart, 1992;Stasser, 1985), where all group members can freely share ideas and strategies to tackle a problem. This approach can produce good results (Toyokawa et al, 2019;Woolley, Aggarwal, et al, 2015;Trouche et al, 2014;Baron, 2005), but is also subject to numerous detrimental effects such as opinion herding, groupthink, and the hidden profile effect (Janis, 1972;Stasser, 1985;Stasser and Stewart, 1992). Also, direct interaction in humans becomes difficult to apply when groups are too large, when members do not work at the same time, or when they have no easy means of communication (e.g., interactions between algorithms and humans (Crandall et al, 2018)).…”

Neurophysiological correlates of collective perceptual decision‐making

“…Accordingly, the dynamics of collaborative behavior are commonly studied to examine how groups working together have the potential to achieve higher performance than the best individual member in a group (i.e., collective benefit; Bahrami et al., , , ; Fusaroli et al., ; Pescetelli, Rees, & Bahrami, ). Research investigating group collaboration and its benefits encompasses many domains such as problem solving (Laughlin, Bonner, & Miner, ; Laughlin, Hatch, Silver, & Boh, ; Trouche, Sander, & Mercier, ), motor performance (Ganesh et al., ; Masumoto & Inui, ; Wahn, Karlinsky, Schmitz, & König, ; Wahn, Schmitz, König, & Knoblich, ) and perceptual tasks (Bang et al., ; Brennan, Chen, Dickinson, Neider, & Zelinsky, ; Mahmoodi et al., ; Wahn, Czeszumski, & König, ; Wahn, Kingstone, & König, , ; Wahn, Schwandt, et al., ). These studies suggest that information exchange and group dynamics are factors contributing to collective benefit.…”