When does diversity trump ability (and vice versa) in group decision making? A simulation study

Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered.

RESULTS

Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.

Collaboration to improve cross-race face identification: Wisdom of the multi-racial crowd?

Face identification is particularly prone to error when individuals identify people of a race other than their own - a phenomenon known as the other-race effect (ORE). Here, we show that collaborative "wisdom-of-crowds" decision-making substantially improves face identification accuracy for own- and other-race faces over individuals working alone. In two online experiments, East Asian and White individuals recognized own- and other-race faces as individuals and as part of a collaborative dyad. Collaboration never proved more beneficial in a social setting than when individual identification decisions were combined computationally. The reliable benefit of non-social collaboration may stem from its ability to avoid the potential negative outcomes of group diversity such as conflict. Consistent with this benefit, the racial diversity of collaborators did not influence either general or race-specific face identification accuracy. Our findings suggest that collaboration between two individuals is a promising strategy for improving cross-race face identification that may translate effectively into forensic and eyewitness settings.

Individuals fail to reap the collective benefits of diversity because of over-reliance on personal information

Collective intelligence refers to the ability of groups to outperform individuals in solving cognitive tasks. Although numerous studies have demonstrated this effect, the mechanisms underlying collective intelligence remain poorly understood. Here, we investigate diversity in cue beliefs as a mechanism potentially promoting collective intelligence. In our experimental study, human groups observed a sequence of cartoon characters, and classified each character as a cooperator or defector based on informative and uninformative cues. Participants first made an individual decision. They then received social information consisting of their group members' decisions before making a second decision. Additionally, individuals reported their beliefs about the cues. Our results showed that individuals made better decisions after observing the decisions of others. Interestingly, individuals developed different cue beliefs, including many wrong ones, despite receiving identical information. Diversity in cue beliefs, however, did not predict collective improvement. Using simulations, we found that diverse collectives did provide better social information, but that individuals failed to reap those benefits because they relied too much on personal information. Our results highlight the potential of belief diversity for promoting collective intelligence, but suggest that this potential often remains unexploited because of over-reliance on personal information.

Simulation of Invertebrate Aggregation Shows the Importance of Stable Personality over Diversity in Consensus Decision-Making

Aggregation of many species of invertebrate is an example of a consensus decision, the success of which is central to survival. Personality is a stable form of behavioural diversity which has been observed in the aggregation process, but neither the reasons for its stability nor its effects on consensus decisions are well understood. By using an agent-based model of invertebrate aggregation, it is found that diverse personalities have only limited benefits to the experimental consensus decision-making process, but may have a more valuable role in natural settings. Importantly, although certain personalities may ostensibly have potential drawbacks at the individual level, such as choosing to rest in unfavourable places, all individuals are likely to benefit from maintaining a constant personality, which promotes group stability. These findings help to improve understanding of consensus decision-making and the prevalence of stable personality.

Decision rules and group rationality: cognitive gain or standstill?

Recent research in group cognition points towards the existence of collective cognitive competencies that transcend individual group members’ cognitive competencies. Since rationality is a key cognitive competence for group decision making, and group cognition emerges from the coordination of individual cognition during social interactions, this study tests the extent to which collaborative and consultative decision rules impact the emergence of group rationality. Using a set of decision tasks adapted from the heuristics and biases literature, we evaluate rationality as the extent to which individual choices are aligned with a normative ideal. We further operationalize group rationality as cognitive synergy (the extent to which collective rationality exceeds average or best individual rationality in the group), and we test the effect of collaborative and consultative decision rules in a sample of 176 groups. Our results show that the collaborative decision rule has superior synergic effects as compared to the consultative decision rule. The ninety one groups working in a collaborative fashion made more rational choices (above and beyond the average rationality of their members) than the eighty five groups working in a consultative fashion. Moreover, the groups using a collaborative decision rule were closer to the rationality of their best member than groups using consultative decision rules. Nevertheless, on average groups did not outperformed their best member. Therefore, our results reveal how decision rules prescribing interpersonal interactions impact on the emergence of collective cognitive competencies. They also open potential venues for further research on the emergence of collective rationality in human decision-making groups.