English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Probability matching is a robust and common failure to adhere to normative predictions in sequential decision making. We show that this choice anomaly is nearly eradicated by gathering individual decision makers into small groups and asking the groups to decide. The group choice advantage emerged both when participants generated responses for an entire sequence of choices without outcome feedback (Exp. 1a) and when participants made trial-by-trial predictions with outcome feedback after each decision (Exp. 1b). We show that the dramatic improvement observed in group settings stands in stark contrast to a complete lack of effective solitary deliberation. These findings suggest a crucial role of group discussion in alleviating the impact of hasty intuitive responses in tasks better suited to careful deliberation.

More heads choose better than one: Group decision making can eliminate probability matching