IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v3y2019i4d10.1038_s41562-019-0541-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The wisdom of polarized crowds

Author

Listed:
  • Feng Shi

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    University of Chicago)

  • Misha Teplitskiy

    (University of Chicago
    Harvard University)

  • Eamon Duede

    (University of Chicago
    University of Chicago)

  • James A. Evans

    (University of Chicago
    University of Chicago
    Santa Fe Institute)

Abstract

As political polarization in the United States continues to rise1–3, the question of whether polarized individuals can fruitfully cooperate becomes pressing. Although diverse perspectives typically lead to superior team performance on complex tasks4,5, strong political perspectives have been associated with conflict, misinformation and a reluctance to engage with people and ideas beyond one’s echo chamber6–8. Here, we explore the effect of ideological composition on team performance by analysing millions of edits to Wikipedia’s political, social issues and science articles. We measure editors’ online ideological preferences by how much they contribute to conservative versus liberal articles. Editor surveys suggest that online contributions associate with offline political party affiliation and ideological self-identity. Our analysis reveals that polarized teams consisting of a balanced set of ideologically diverse editors produce articles of a higher quality than homogeneous teams. The effect is most clearly seen in Wikipedia’s political articles, but also in social issues and even science articles. Analysis of article ‘talk pages’ reveals that ideologically polarized teams engage in longer, more constructive, competitive and substantively focused but linguistically diverse debates than teams of ideological moderates. More intense use of Wikipedia policies by ideologically diverse teams suggests institutional design principles to help unleash the power of polarization.

Suggested Citation

  • Feng Shi & Misha Teplitskiy & Eamon Duede & James A. Evans, 2019. "The wisdom of polarized crowds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 329-336, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-019-0541-6
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0541-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin-Gutierrez, Samuel & Losada, Juan C. & Benito, Rosa M., 2023. "Multipolar social systems: Measuring polarization beyond dichotomous contexts," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Benjamin Monnery & François-Charles Wolff, 2023. "Is participatory democracy in line with social protest? Evidence from the French Yellow Vests movement," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 283-309, October.
    3. Saumya Bhadani & Shun Yamaya & Alessandro Flammini & Filippo Menczer & Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia & Brendan Nyhan, 2022. "Political audience diversity and news reliability in algorithmic ranking," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 495-505, April.
    4. Kai Ruggeri & Bojana Većkalov & Lana Bojanić & Thomas L. Andersen & Sarah Ashcroft-Jones & Nélida Ayacaxli & Paula Barea-Arroyo & Mari Louise Berge & Ludvig D. Bjørndal & Aslı Bursalıoğlu & Vanessa Bü, 2021. "The general fault in our fault lines," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(10), pages 1369-1380, October.
    5. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    6. Yeomans, Michael & Minson, Julia & Collins, Hanne & Chen, Frances & Gino, Francesca, 2020. "Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 131-148.
    7. Iandoli, Luca & Primario, Simonetta & Zollo, Giuseppe, 2021. "The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Baerg, Nicole Rae & Krainin, Colin, 2022. "Divided committees and strategic vagueness," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    9. Jon Atwell & Marlon Twyman II, 2023. "Metawisdom of the Crowd: How Choice Within Aided Decision Making Can Make Crowd Wisdom Robust," Papers 2308.15451, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-019-0541-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.