Learning to make collective decisions: the impact of confidence escalation

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 8; no. 12; p. e81195
• Main Authors: Mahmoodi, Ali, Bang, Dan, Ahmadabadi, Majid Nili, Bahrami, Bahador
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 06-12-2013; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Analysis; Cognitive ability; Computer applications; Computer engineering; Confidence intervals; Decision Making; Decisions; Emotions; Engineering schools; Humans; Learning; Male; Model accuracy; Models, Theoretical; Neurosciences; Photic Stimulation; Reinforcement; Reinforcement (Psychology); Science; Social aspects; Social Behavior; Social discrimination learning; Verbal communication; Visual perception; Young Adult; Denmark; United Kingdom > UK; Iran; Aarhus Denmark
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081195
• EISSN: 1932-6203

Little is known about how people learn to take into account others' opinions in joint decisions. To address this question, we combined computational and empirical approaches. Human dyads made individual and joint visual perceptual decision and rated their confidence in those decisions (data previously published). We trained a reinforcement (temporal difference) learning agent to get the participants' confidence level and learn to arrive at a dyadic decision by finding the policy that either maximized the accuracy of the model decisions or maximally conformed to the empirical dyadic decisions. When confidences were shared visually without verbal interaction, RL agents successfully captured social learning. When participants exchanged confidences visually and interacted verbally, no collective benefit was achieved and the model failed to predict the dyadic behaviour. Behaviourally, dyad members' confidence increased progressively and verbal interaction accelerated this escalation. The success of the model in drawing collective benefit from dyad members was inversely related to confidence escalation rate. The findings show an automated learning agent can, in principle, combine individual opinions and achieve collective benefit but the same agent cannot discount the escalation suggesting that one cognitive component of collective decision making in human may involve discounting of overconfidence arising from interactions.