Naïve realism and capturing the “wisdom of dyads”

• Published in: Journal of experimental social psychology Vol. 48; no. 2; pp. 507 - 512
• Main Authors: Liberman, Varda, Minson, Julia A., Bryan, Christopher J., Ross, Lee
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: San Diego Elsevier Inc 01.03.2012; Academic Press
• Subjects: Advice taking; Attributional bias; Behavioural psychology; Bias; Cognition & reasoning; Estimation; Group decision making; Judgment aggregation; Objectivity; Peer groups; Peers; Perceptions; Psychological effects; Realism; Social influence; Social perception; Social psychology; Underweighting peer input; Social influence; Group decision making; Judgment aggregation; Underweighting peer input; Attributional bias; Advice taking
• ISSN: 0022-1031; 1096-0465
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.016

Two studies provided evidence for the role of naïve realism in the failure of individuals to give adequate weight to peer input, and explored two strategies for reducing the impact of this inferential bias. Study 1 demonstrated that dyad members see their own estimates as more “objective” than those of their partners and that this difference in perceived objectivity predicts the degree of underweighting. Compelling participants to assess their own versus their partners' objectivity prior to revising estimates decreased underweighting, an effect that was mediated by differences in perceived objectivity. Study 2 showed that the increase in accuracy that results from requiring dyad members to offer joint estimates via discussion is largely retained in subsequent individual estimates. Both studies showed that underweighting is greater when dyad members disagree on the issue about which they are making consensus estimates—a finding that further supports a “naïve realism” interpretation of the phenomenon. ► Discounting of peer input in numerical judgment is partly caused by naïve realism. ► The degree of discounting is related to self-perceptions of superior objectivity. ► Rating own and peer objectivity prior to estimate revision decreased discounting. ► Offering joint estimates increased the accuracy of subsequent individual estimates. ► Discounting of peer input increased as a function of socio-political disagreement.