Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Majority rules: how good are we at aggregating convergent opinions?

  • Hugo Mercier (a1) and Olivier Morin (a2)

Abstract

Mathematical models and simulations demonstrate the power of majority rules, i.e. following an opinion shared by a majority of group members. Majority opinion should be followed more when (a) the relative and absolute size of the majority grow, the members of the majority are (b) competent, and (c) benevolent, (d) the majority opinion conflicts less with our prior beliefs and (e) the members of the majority formed their opinions independently. We review the experimental literature bearing on these points. The few experiments bearing on (b) and (c) suggest that both factors are adequately taken into account. Many experiments show that (d) is also followed, with participants usually putting too much weight on their own opinion relative to that of the majority. Regarding factors (a) and (e), in contrast, the evidence is mixed: participants sometimes take into account optimally the absolute and relative size of the majority, as well as the presence of informational dependencies. In other circumstances, these factors are ignored. We suggest that an evolutionary framework can help make sense of these conflicting results by distinguishing between evolutionarily valid cues – that are readily taken into account – and non-evolutionarily valid cues – that are ignored by default.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Majority rules: how good are we at aggregating convergent opinions?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Majority rules: how good are we at aggregating convergent opinions?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Majority rules: how good are we at aggregating convergent opinions?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. Institut Jean Nicod, Département d'études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, PSL University, CNRS, ParisFrance. E-mail: hugo.mercier@gmail.com

References

Hide All
Aikhenvald, AY (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, LR and Holt, CA (1997) Information cascades in the laboratory. The American Economic Review, 87(5), 847862.
Andersson, M, Hedesström, M and Gärling, T (2014) A social-psychological perspective on herding in stock markets. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 15(3), 226234.
Antenore, M, Leone, G, Panconesi, A and Terolli, E (2018) Together we buy, alone i quit: some experimental studies of online persuaders. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Digital Tools and Uses Congress, Vol. 2. New York: ACM.
Apicella, CL and Barrett, HC (2016) Cross-cultural evolutionary psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology 7, 9297.
Asch, SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193(5), 3135.
Asch, SE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs 70(9), 170.
Austen-Smith, D and Banks, JS (1996) Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet jury theorem. American Political Science Review 90(01), 3445.
Barkow, JH, Cosmides, L and Tooby, J (1992) The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baron, RS, Vandello, JA and Brunsman, B (1996) The forgotten variable in conformity research: impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(5), 915.
Barron, OE and Stuerke, PS (1998) Dispersion in analysts’ earnings forecasts as a measure of uncertainty. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 13(3), 245270.
Bernard, S, Harris, P, Terrier, N and Clément, F (2015) Children weigh the number of informants and perceptual uncertainty when identifying objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 136, 7081.
Bernard, S, Proust, J and Clément, F (2015) Four-to six-year-old children's sensitivity to reliability versus consensus in the endorsement of object labels. Child Development.
Bikhchandani, S, Hirshleifer, D and Welch, I (1998) Learning from the behavior of others: conformity, fads, and informational cascades. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3), 151170.
Bloomfield, R and Hales, J (2009) An experimental investigation of the positive and negative effects of mutual observation. The Accounting Review 84(2), 331354.
Boehm, C, Antweiler, C, Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I, Kent, S, Knauft, BM, Mithen, S, … Wilson, DS (1996) Emergency decisions, cultural-selection mechanics, and group selection [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 37(5), 763793.
Bonaccio, S and Dalal, RS (2006) Advice taking and decision-making: an integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127151.
Bond, R (2005) Group size and conformity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8(4), 331354.
Boyd, R and Richerson, PJ (1985) Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Boyd, R and Richerson, PJ (1988) An evolutionary model of social learning: the effects of spatial and temporal variation. In Zentall, TR and Galef, BG (eds), Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Perspectives (pp. 2948) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boyd, R and Richerson, PJ (1996) Why culture is common, but cultural evolution is rare. Proceedings of the British Academy 88, 7793.
Budescu, DV and Yu, H-T (2007) Aggregation of opinions based on correlated cues and advisors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 20(2), 153177.
Budescu, DV, Rantilla, AK, Yu, H-T, and Karelitz, TM (2003) The effects of asymmetry among advisors on the aggregation of their opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90(1), 178194.
Campbell, JD and Fairey, PJ (1989) Informational and normative routes to conformity: the effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(3), 457.
Carruthers, P (2006) The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chrisomalis, S (2010) Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cialdini, RB and Goldstein, NJ (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 591621.
Claidière, N and Whiten, A (2012) Integrating the study of conformity and culture in humans and nonhuman animals. Psychological Bulletin 138(1), 126.
Claidière, N, Bowler, M and Whiten, A (2012) Evidence for weak or linear conformity but not for hyper-conformity in an everyday social learning context. PloS One 7(2), e30970.
Claidière, N, Trouche, E and Mercier, H (2017) Argumentation and the diffusion of counter-intuitive beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146(7), 10521066.
Clément, F (2010) To Trust or not to trust? Children's social epistemology. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(4), 119.
Condorcet (1785) Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris: L'imprimerie royale.
Conradt, L and List, C (2009) Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 364(1518), 719742.
Conradt, L and Roper, TJ (2003) Group decision-making in animals. Nature 421(6919), 155158.
Conway III, LG and Schaller, M (2005) When authorities’ commands backfire: attributions about consensus and effects on deviant decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(3), 311.
Cooper, RA, Day, TE and Lewis, CM (2001) Following the leader: a study of individual analysts’ earnings forecasts. Journal of Financial Economics 61(3), 383416.
Corriveau, KH and Harris, PL (2010) Preschoolers (sometimes) defer to the majority in making simple perceptual judgments. Developmental Psychology 46(2), 437.
Cosmides, L and Tooby, J (1994) Origins of domain specificity: the evolution of functional organization. In Hirschfeld, LA and Gelman, SA (eds), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture (pp. 85116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coultas, JC (2004) When in Rome … An evolutionary perspective on conformity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 7(4), 317331.
Coultas, JC and van Leeuwen, EJ (2015) Conformity: Definitions, types, and evolutionary grounding. In V Zeigler-Hill, LLM Welling & TK Shackelford (eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Psychology (pp. 189–202). London: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15
Crutchfield, RS (1955) Conformity and character. American Psychologist 10(5), 191.
Dehaene, S (1999) The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deryugina, T and Shurchkov, O (2016) The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. PloS One 11(4), e0151469.
Deutsch, M and Gerard, HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51(3), 629.
Dietrich, F and Spiekermann, K (2013) Independent opinions? On the causal foundations of belief formation and Jury Theorems. Mind fzt074.
Dixon, G (2016) Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: new insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12260/full
Dixon, G, Hmielowski, J and Ma, Y (2017) Improving climate change acceptance among US conservatives through value-based message targeting. Science Communication 39(4), 520534.
Efferson, C, Richerson, PJ, McElreath, R, Lubell, M, Edsten, E, Waring, TMBaum, W (2007) Learning, productivity, and noise: an experimental study of cultural transmission on the Bolivian Altiplano. Evolution and Human Behavior 28(1), 1117.
Efferson, C, Lalive, R, Richerson, PJ, McElreath, R and Lubell, M (2008) Conformists and mavericks: the empirics of frequency-dependent cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 29(1), 5664.
Efferson, C, Lalive, R, Cacault, MP and Kistler, D (2016) The evolution of facultative conformity based on similarity. PloS One, 11(12), e0168551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168551
Einav, S (2017) Thinking for themselves? The effect of informant independence on children's endorsement of testimony from a consensus. Social Development, 27(1), 7386.
Eriksson, K and Coultas, JC (2009) Are people really conformist-biased? An empirical test and a new mathematical model. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 7(1), 521.
Estlund, D (1994) Opinion leaders, independence, and Condorcet's jury theorem. Theory and Decision 36(2), 131162.
Festinger, L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2), 117140.
Gallistel, CR and Gibbon, J (2000) Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review 107(2), 289344.
Gerard, HB, Wilhelmy, RA and Conolley, ES (1968) Conformity and group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8(1), 79.
Gigerenzer, G (2007) Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In Koehler, D and Harvey, N (eds), Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gigerenzer, G, Todd, PM and ABC Research Group (1999) Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goeree, JK, Palfrey, TR, Rogers, BW and McKelvey, RD (2007) Self-correcting information cascades. The Review of Economic Studies 74(3), 733762.
Gonzalez, R (1994) When words speak louder than actions: another's evaluations can appear more diagnostic than their decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58(2), 214245.
Harkins, SG and Petty, RE (1981) Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: an information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40(3), 401.
Harkins, SG and Petty, RE (1987) Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(2), 260.
Harries, C, Yaniv, I and Harvey, N (2004) Combining advice: the weight of a dissenting opinion in the consensus. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 17(5), 333348.
Harris, PL (2012) Trusting What you're Told: How Children Learn from Others. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
Harris, PL and Lane, JD (2014) Infants understand how testimony works. Topoi, 33(2), 443458.
Hastie, R and Kameda, T (2005) The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review 112(2), 49450814.
Haun, DBM and Tomasello, M (2011) Conformity to peer pressure in preschool children. Child Development 82(6), 17591767.
Haun, DBM, Van Leeuwen, EJ and Edelson, MG (2013) Majority influence in children and other animals. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 3, 6171.
Henrich, J and Boyd, R (1998) The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior 19(4), 215241.
Hertwig, R and Erev, I (2009) The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(12), 517523.
Hess, NH and Hagen, EH (2006) Psychological adaptations for assessing gossip veracity. Human Nature 17(3), 337354.
Hodges, BH (2015) Conformity and divergence in interactions, groups, and culture. In The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hu, J, Whalen, A, Buchsbaum, D, Griffiths, T and Xu, F (2015) Can children balance the size of a majority with the quality of their information? Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Conference, Pasadena, California, July 22–25, 2015.
Hutchins, E (1996) Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Jayles, B, Kim, H, Escobedo, R, Cezera, S, Blanchet, A, Kameda, T, … Theraulaz, G (2017) How social information can improve estimation accuracy in human groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201703695.
Jegadeesh, N and Kim, W (2010) Do analysts herd? An analysis of recommendations and market reactions. Review of Financial Studies 23(2), 901937.
Kao, AB and Couzin, ID (2014) Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281(1784), 20133305.
Kerr, JR and Wilson, MS (2018) Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety. PloS One 13(7), e0200295.
Keshk, W (2012) When are investors’ uncertainty judgments influenced by their perceptions about analyst herding? (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/42123.
Kim, C and Pantzalis, C (2003) Global/industrial diversification and analyst herding. Financial Analysts Journal 59(2), 6979.
King, AJ and Cowlishaw, G (2007) When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making. Biology Letters 3(2), 137139.
Kroll, Y, Levy, H and Rapoport, A (1988) Experimental tests of the separation theorem and the capital asset pricing model. The American Economic Review, 78(3), 500519.
Kübler, D and Weizsäcker, G (2005) Are longer cascades more stable? Journal of the European Economic Association 3(2–3), 330339.
Laland, KN (2004) Social learning strategies. Animal Learning and Behavior 32(1), 414.
Landrum, AR, Hallman, WK and Jamieson, KH (2018) Examining the impact of expert voices: communicating the scientific consensus on genetically-modified organisms. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 120.
Latané, B (1981) The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36(4), 343356.
Latané, B and Wolf, S (1981) The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review 88(5), 438.
Laughlin, PR (2011) Group Problem Solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Laughlin, PR, Hatch, EC, Silver, JS and Boh, L (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, 644651.
Lazard, G (2001) On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3), 359367.
Lewandowsky, S, Gignac, GE and Vaughan, S (2013) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change 3(4), 399404.
Lopes, D, Vala, J and Garcia-Marques, L (2007) Social validation of everyday knowledge: Heterogeneity and consensus functionality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 11(3), 223.
MacCoun, RJ (2012) The burden of social proof: shared thresholds and social influence. Psychological Review 119(2), 345.
Maines, LA (1990) The effect of forecast redundancy on judgments of a consensus forecast's expected accuracy. Journal of Accounting Research, 28, 2947.
Maines, LA (1996) An experimental examination of subjective forecast combination. International Journal of Forecasting 12(2), 223233.
Mannes, AE (2009) Are we wise about the wisdom of crowds? The use of group judgments in belief revision. Management Science 55(8), 12671279.
Martin, R and Hewstone, M (2008) Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: the source-context-elaboration model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40, 237326.
Maynard Smith, J and Harper, D (2003) Animal Signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McElreath, R, Lubell, M, Richerson, PJ, Waring, TM, Baum, W, Edsten, EPaciotti, B (2005) Applying evolutionary models to the laboratory study of social learning. Evolution and Human Behavior 26(6), 483508.
McElreath, R, Bell, AV, Efferson, C, Lubell, M, Richerson, PJ and Waring, T (2008) Beyond existence and aiming outside the laboratory: estimating frequency-dependent and pay-off-biased social learning strategies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 363(1509), 35153528.
Mercier, H (2017) How gullible are we? A review of the evidence from psychology and social science. Review of General Psychology 21(2), 103.
Mercier, H (2019) A paradox of information aggregation: We do it well but think about it poorly, and why this is a problem for institutions. In Ballantyne, N and Dunning, D (eds) Reason, Bias, and Inquiry: New Perspectives from the Crossroads of Epistemology and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, in press.
Mercier, H and Miton, H (2019) Utilizing simple cues to informational dependency. Evolution and Human Behavior, in press.
Mercier, H, Dockendorff, M and Schwartzberg, M (submitted) Democratic legitimacy and attitudes about information-aggregation procedures.
Mercier, H, Majima, Y, Claidière, N and Léone, J (submitted) Obstacles to the spread of unintuitive beliefs.
Morgan, TJH, Rendell, LE, Ehn, M, Hoppitt, W and Laland, KN (2012) The evolutionary basis of human social learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 279(1729), 653662.
Morgan, TJH, Laland, KN and Harris, PL (2015) The development of adaptive conformity in young children: effects of uncertainty and consensus. Developmental Science 18(4), 511524.
Muthukrishna, M, Morgan, TJ and Henrich, J (2016) The when and who of social learning and conformist transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 37(1), 1020.
Mutz, DC (1998) Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petty, RE and Cacioppo, JT (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion. New York: Springer.
Petty, RE and Wegener, DT (1998) Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In Gilbert, DT, Fiske, S and Lindzey, G (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 323390). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Slovic, P (1966) Cue-consistency and cue-utilization in judgment. The American Journal of Psychology 79(3), 427434.
Soll, JB (1999) Intuitive theories of information: Beliefs about the value of redundancy. Cognitive Psychology 38, 317346.
Sowden, S, Koletsi, S, Lymberopoulos, E, Militaru, E, Catmur, C and Bird, G (2018) Quantifying compliance and acceptance through public and private social conformity. Consciousness and Cognition 65, 359367.
Sperber, D (2001) In defense of massive modularity. In Dupoux, E (ed.) Language, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 4757) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sperber, D, Clément, F, Heintz, C, Mascaro, O, Mercier, H, Origgi, G and Wilson, D (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25(4), 359393.
Tanford, S and Penrod, S (1984) Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin 95(2), 189.
Toyokawa, W, Whalen, A and Laland, KN (2018) Social learning strategies regulate the wisdom and madness of interactive crowds. BioRxiv 326637.
Trouche, E, Johansson, P, Hall, L and Mercier, H (2018) Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information. PloS One 13(1), e0188825.
Trouche, E, Sander, E and Mercier, H (2014) Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(5), 19581971.
van der Linden, SL, Leiserowitz, AA, Feinberg, GD and Maibach, EW (2014) How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? Climatic Change 126(1–2), 255262.
van der Linden, SL, Clarke, CE and Maibach, EW (2015a) Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health 15(1), 1207.
van der Linden, SL, Leiserowitz, AA, Feinberg, GD and Maibach, EW (2015b) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PloS One 10(2), e0118489.
Van Leeuwen, EJ, Cohen, E, Collier-Baker, E, Rapold, CJ, Schäfer, M, Schütte, S and Haun, DB (2018) The development of human social learning across seven societies. Nature Communications 9(1), 2076.
Votruba, AM and Kwan, VS (2015) Disagreeing on whether agreement Is persuasive: perceptions of expert group decisions. PloS One 10(3), e0121426.
Weizsäcker, G (2010) Do we follow others when we should? A simple test of rational expectations. American Economic Review 100(5), 2340–60.
Whalen, A, Griffiths, TL and Buchsbaum, D (2018) Sensitivity to shared information in social learning. Cognitive Science 42(1), 168187.
Whiten, A (2019) Conformity and over-imitation: an integrative review of variant. Advances in the Study of Behavior 51, 31.
Wilder, DA (1977) Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(3), 253268.
Wolf, M, Kurvers, RH, Ward, AJ, Krause, S and Krause, J (2013) Accurate decisions in an uncertain world: collective cognition increases true positives while decreasing false positives. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 280(1756), 20122777.
Yaniv, I (1997) Weighting and trimming: heuristics for aggregating judgments under uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69(3), 237249.
Yaniv, I (2004) Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93, 113.
Yaniv, I, Choshen-Hillel, S and Milyavsky, M (2009) Spurious consensus and opinion revision: why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35(2), 558.
Yaniv, I and Kleinberger, E (2000) Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83, 260281.
Yousif, SR, Aboody, R and Keil, FC (2018) Any consensus will do: the failure to distinguish between ‘true'and ‘false’ consensus. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, 25–28 July 2018.
Zhou, S and Guo, B (2016) The order effect on online review helpfulness: a social influence perspective. Decision Support Systems 93, 7787.
Ziegelmeyer, A, March, C and Krügel, S (2013) Do we follow others when we should? A simple test of rational expectations: comment. The American Economic Review 103(6), 26332642.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed