Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle

By Richard P. Larrick, Jack B. Soll. Management Sciences, 2006

407 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Management Science and Operations Research, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5827b816633bd41bed1c7761c9258c427c05596

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review (2022, background): “Intuitively, we prefer that the component forecasts fall on opposite sides of the truth (the realization) (Bates and Granger, 1969; Larrick and Soll, 2006), so that the forecast errors tend to cancel each other out.”
The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy (2010, background): “Since the 1920’s, studies on combined forecasts (Clemen, 1989), aggregate judgments (Gordon, 1924), and the averaging principle (Larrick & Soll, 2006), have demonstrated how aggregating judgments across individuals, even through simple mathematical averaging, can provide highly accurate answers to…”
To combine or not to combine: selecting among forecasts and their combinations (2005, methodology): “Characteristics other than the spread and variance, such as the bracketing rate used by Larrick and Soll (2003), may be also useful for this decision.”
Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts (2016, neutral): “Indeed, a substantial amount of research has gone into examining the best method of combining the predictions of many individuals as accurately as possible (Budescu & Chen, 2014; Larrick & Soll, 2012; Makridakis & Winkler, 1983).”
Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments (2007, background): “Such results have been demonstrated in diverse domains, ranging from perceptual estimations of line lengths to business forecasts, and are an important motivation for research on combining estimates (Armstrong, 2001; Ashton & Ashton, 1985; Larrick & Soll, 2006; Libby & BlashWeld, 1978; Surowiecki,”
Golden Rule of Forecasting: Be conservative (2015, neutral): “In a series of experiments with highly qualified MBA students, a majority of participants thought that averaging estimates would deliver only average performance (Larrick and Soll, 2006).”
Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice (2015, methodology): “Decision makers who take into account others' opinions or judgments—even if they use simple strategies to aggregate this information—can improve their judgment or choice (Clemen, 1989) and reduce error (Larrick & Soll, 2006).”
The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy (2013, background): “For instance, when individuals are encouraged to make an estimate and then consider “the opposite” of their initial estimate (e.g., Larrick & Soll, 2006; Lord, Lepper, & Preston, 1984), or to consider others' perspectives (e.g.”
Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved (2011, background): “Averaging works because estimates often bracket (i.e., fall on opposite sides of) the truth, causing positive and negative errors to cancel out (Larrick & Soll, 2006).”
Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen (2012, background): “Research has shown, however, the people misunderstand the benefits of combining the estimates of two people (Larrick & Soll, 2006), and, in revising their own judgments, often ignore advice from others (WOA = 0), making their final estimates less accurate than if they had given equal weight to…”