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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Group discussions are a way for individuals to exchange ideas and argumentsin order to reach better decisions than they could on their own. One of thepremises of productive discussions is that better solutions will prevail, andthat the idea selection process is mediated by the (relative) competence of theindividuals involved. However, since people may not know their actualcompetence on a new task, their behavior is influenced by their self-estimatedcompetence --- that is, their confidence --- which can be misaligned with theiractual competence.  Our goal in this work is to understand the effects of confidence-competencemisalignment on the dynamics and outcomes of discussions. To this end, wedesign a large-scale natural setting, in the form of an online team-basedgeography game, that allows us to disentangle confidence from competence andthus separate their effects.  We find that in task-oriented discussions, the more-confident individualshave a larger impact on the group's decisions even when these individuals areat the same level of competence as their teammates. Furthermore, thisunjustified role of confidence in the decision-making process often leads teamsto under-perform. We explore this phenomenon by investigating the effects ofconfidence on conversational dynamics.

When confidence and competence collide: Effects on online decision-making discussions