Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2026

05:48
The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
Published on: June 12, 2020
Think twice and then: combining or choosing in dialectical bootstrapping?
Stefan M Herzog1, Ralph Hertwig1
1Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition
|September 11, 2013
Summary
People can improve accuracy by combining their own estimates, a process called "crowd within." Combining is more likely when individuals are prompted to think differently and when their estimates significantly disagree, suggesting a strategy to mitigate error risk.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Psychology
- Decision Making
- Social Cognition
Background:
- The "wisdom of crowds" effect demonstrates that aggregating independent judgments can yield accurate collective estimates.
- Individuals can simulate this effect internally, creating a "crowd within" by combining their own non-redundant estimates.
- Prior research introduced "dialectical bootstrapping" to enhance accuracy by encouraging divergent thinking between estimates.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the conditions under which individuals spontaneously utilize the "crowd within" strategy for improved accuracy.
- To understand the factors influencing the decision to combine multiple self-generated estimates versus selecting a single best estimate.
- To explore whether alternative strategies can outperform the "crowd within" approach.
Main Methods:
- Participants generated multiple estimates for a given task, with some instructed to actively contradict their initial judgments.
- The study analyzed the relationship between instructions, the degree of disagreement between estimates, and the choice to combine estimates.
- Performance was compared between participants who combined estimates and those who employed other strategies.
Main Results:
- Participants were more inclined to combine their estimates when explicitly instructed to think differently or contradict themselves.
- The likelihood of combining estimates increased with the magnitude of disagreement between the first and second estimates.
- Participants who did not combine their estimates failed to achieve accuracy superior to their internal "crowd within" performance.
Conclusions:
- Spontaneous adoption of the "crowd within" strategy is influenced by cognitive prompting and perceived error risk.
- Individuals appear to use estimate combination as a heuristic to hedge against potential large errors.
- The "crowd within" strategy, particularly when employing dialectical bootstrapping, offers a robust method for enhancing individual judgment accuracy.
Related Concept Videos
Bootstrapping
The term "bootstrap" originated in the 19th century as a metaphor for self-improvement or achieving something independently, without external assistance. This concept extends to statistical bootstrapping, a self-contained method for estimating population parameters through resampling, even though it can be computationally intensive. Developed by the American statistician Dr. Bradley Efron in 1979, bootstrapping provides a robust way to perform inference when the original sample size is small or...
Reason and Intuition
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...
Decision Making: Traditional Method
The process of hypothesis testing based on the traditional method includes calculating the critical value, testing the value of the test statistic using the sample data, and interpreting these values.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Decision Making
Decision-making is a fundamental cognitive process that involves evaluating alternatives and selecting among them. This process can range from simple choices, such as deciding what to wear, to complex decisions, like choosing a major in college or a career path. The complexity of the decision often dictates the approach we use, which can be broadly categorized into two types: automatic and controlled decision-making.
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Group Design
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to...
Schemas
A schema is a mental construct consisting of a cluster or collection of related concepts (Bartlett, 1932). There are many different types of schemata, and they all have one thing in common: schemata are a method of organizing information that allows the brain to work more efficiently. When a schema is activated, the brain makes immediate assumptions about the person or object being observed.

