The so-called inner-crowd effect is intended to help make thoughtful decisions. People confront themselves with possible opposing positions to their own assessment. A study shows: This has clear advantages.
The term “inner crowd effect” was coined by two Dutch researchers: Philippe van de Calseyde (TU Eindhoven) and Emir Efendić (Maastricht University). In June 2022, they published a study whose title summarizes: “Taking a divergent perspective improves the accuracy of quantitative estimates.”
Or, to put it more simply: If you not only rely on your own judgment, but also deal with alternative opinions, you will achieve better results when estimating.
What is the Inner Crowd Effect?
With the term “inner crowd” de Calseyde and Efendic refer to the English expression “wisdom of the crowd”. It can be translated as “intelligence of the crowd” and means that a collection of different opinions on a topic leaves less room for error than the opinion of a single person.
Even if the individual opinions themselves are not necessarily error-free, taken together they provide a better approximation than when taken alone. This approach became particularly popular thanks to the book “The Wisdom of the Many” by the American journalist James Surowiecki, which was published in 2004 (available, for example, on Amazon).
The study by the two Dutch people now suggests that such different opinions do not necessarily have to come from different people: you should also be able to benefit from the “wisdom of the many” if you yourself take different perspectives on a problem – in other words, if you have an internal discussion with people who think differently.
Related to the topic: Make better decisions with the 10-10-10 method
Inner Crowd Effect: Differences of opinion can be helpful
As part of their study, de Calseyde and Efendic conducted several series of tests with a total of 6,400 participants. The test subjects were asked to solve various estimation tasks and, for example, estimate the weight of a piano, a washing machine or a baby elephant.
Once they had made an initial decision, they were then asked to make a second estimate. For this they received different instructions:
- A group should only guess a second time without following any particular strategy.
- The members of the second group were asked to imagine how a friend with similar political views to themselves would solve the task.
- Finally, the third group was asked to take the perspective of a friend with different political views for their second estimate.
Based on this classification, the estimation results were very different. The third group stood out particularly clearly: Here the second estimate differed most from the first. At first, such a big difference in opinion doesn’t sound very helpful in determining the results. In fact, the evaluation showed:
- The midpoint between two very different estimates was often the closest to the correct result.
In the third group, the average of the first and second estimates was often not only more accurate than the first estimate, but also more accurate than the averages in the other groups. For around a third of the test subjects from the third group, the value they were actually looking for was between the two estimates they had given. In the other two groups, however, this only occurred in one in five cases.
Inner crowd effect: opposing voices can be simulated
The results of the study indicate that the effectiveness of the inner crowd effect is comparable to the “intelligence of the crowd”. The members of the third group were not able to include the alternative opinions of real people in their decision, but had to think of them themselves. Nevertheless, the comparison of the average results shows that even such internal conflicts based on fictitious opposing positions can lead to a more reflective decision.
In many situations, it is advantageous not to just rely on your own assessment, but to ask an “inner crowd” about possible alternatives – and then take a middle path.
But be careful: This strategy is less successful with values that are at the extreme poles of a scale. This is the case, for example, if very high or very low percentage numbers have to be guessed. In such situations, the average of two very different estimates leads away from the correct result rather than approximating it on average.
More from the field of psychology: Eisenhower principle: How to set your priorities correctly
Read more on Techzle\.com:
- Fear of the future: effective means to combat worries
- Happiness Professor reveals 3 effective exercises to combat stress, conflict and fear
- Self-compassion: This is why it’s important
** marked with ** or orange underlined Links to sources of supply are partly partner links: If you buy here, you are actively supporting Techzle\.com, because we then receive a small part of the sales proceeds. More info.